Lettuce Cultivar &#39;Steamboat&#39;

ABSTRACT

A lettuce cultivar, designated ‘Steamboat’, is disclosed. The invention relates to the seeds of lettuce cultivar ‘Steamboat’, to the plants of lettuce cultivar ‘Steamboat’ and to methods for producing a lettuce plant by crossing the cultivar ‘Steamboat’ with itself or another lettuce cultivar. The invention further relates to methods for producing a lettuce plant containing in its genetic material one or more transgenes and to the transgenic lettuce plants and plant parts produced by those methods. This invention also relates to lettuce cultivars or breeding cultivars and plant parts derived from lettuce cultivar ‘Steamboat’, to methods for producing other lettuce cultivars, lines or plant parts derived from lettuce cultivar ‘Steamboat’ and to the lettuce plants, varieties, and their parts derived from the use of those methods. The invention further relates to hybrid lettuce seeds, plants, and plant parts produced by crossing cultivar ‘Steamboat’ with another lettuce cultivar.

BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION

The present invention relates to a new and distinctive iceberg variety lettuce (Lactuca sativa L.) variety designated ‘Steamboat’. All publications cited in this application are herein incorporated by reference.

There are numerous steps in the development of any novel, desirable plant germplasm. Plant breeding begins with the analysis and definition of problems and weaknesses of the current germplasm, the establishment of program goals, and the definition of specific breeding objectives. The next step is selection of germplasm that possess the traits to meet the program goals. The goal is to combine in a single variety or hybrid an improved combination of desirable traits from the parental germplasm. These important traits may include increased head size and weight, higher seed yield, improved color, resistance to diseases and insects, tolerance to drought and heat, and better agronomic quality.

Practically speaking, all cultivated forms of lettuce belong to the highly polymorphic species Lactuca sativa that is grown for its edible head and leaves. As a crop, lettuce is grown commercially wherever environmental conditions permit the production of an economically viable yield. Lettuce is the World's most popular salad. In the United States, the principal growing regions are California and Arizona which produce approximately 329,700 acres out of a total annual acreage of more than 333,300 acres (USDA, 2005).

Fresh lettuce is available in the United States year-round although the greatest supply is from May through October. For planting purposes, the lettuce season is typically divided into three categories, early, mid and late, with the coastal areas planting from January to August, and the desert regions planting from August to December. Fresh lettuce is consumed nearly exclusively as fresh, raw product and occasionally as a cooked vegetable.

Lactuca sativa is in the Cichoreae tribe of the Asteraceae (Compositae) family. Lettuce is related to chicory, sunflower, aster, dandelion, artichoke and chrysanthemum.

Sativa is one of about 300 species in the genus Lactuca. There are seven different morphological types of lettuce. The crisphead group includes the iceberg and batavian types. Iceberg lettuce has a large, firm head with a crisp texture and a white or creamy yellow interior. The batavian lettuce predates the iceberg type and has a smaller and less firm head. The butterhead group has a small, soft head with an almost oily texture. The romaine, also known as cos lettuce, has elongated upright leaves forming a loose, loaf-shaped head and the outer leaves are usually dark green. Leaf lettuce comes in many varieties, none of which form a head, and include the green oak leaf variety. The next three types are seldom seen in the United States: Latin lettuce looks like a cross between romaine and butterhead; stem lettuce has long, narrow leaves and thick, edible stems; and oilseed lettuce is a type grown for its large seeds that are pressed to obtain oil.

Choice of breeding or selection methods depends on the mode of plant reproduction, the heritability of the trait(s) being improved, and the type of cultivar used commercially (e.g., F₁ hybrid cultivar, pureline cultivar, etc.). For highly heritable traits, a choice of superior individual plants evaluated at a single location will be effective, whereas for traits with low heritability, selection should be based on mean values obtained from replicated evaluations of families of related plants. Popular selection methods commonly include pedigree selection, modified pedigree selection, mass selection, and recurrent selection.

The complexity of inheritance influences choice of the breeding method. Backcross breeding is used to transfer one or a few favorable genes for a highly heritable trait into a desirable cultivar. This approach has been used extensively for breeding disease-resistant cultivars. Various recurrent selection techniques are used to improve quantitatively inherited traits controlled by numerous genes. The use of recurrent selection in self-pollinating crops depends on the ease of pollination, the frequency of successful hybrids from each pollination, and the number of hybrid offspring from each successful cross.

Each breeding program should include a periodic, objective evaluation of the efficiency of the breeding procedure. Evaluation criteria vary depending on the goal and objectives, but should include gain from selection per year based on comparisons to an appropriate standard, the overall value of the advanced breeding lines, and the number of successful cultivars produced per unit of input (e.g., per year, per dollar expended, etc.).

Promising advanced breeding lines are thoroughly tested and compared to appropriate standards in environments representative of the commercial target area(s) for at least three years. The best lines are candidates for new commercial cultivars; those still deficient in a few traits are used as parents to produce new populations for further selection.

These processes, which lead to the final step of marketing and distribution, usually take from ten to twenty years from the time the first cross or selection is made. Therefore, development of new cultivars is a time-consuming process that requires precise forward planning, efficient use of resources, and a minimum of changes in direction.

A most difficult task is the identification of individuals that are genetically superior, because for most traits the true genotypic value is masked by other confounding plant traits or environmental factors. One method of identifying a superior plant is to observe its performance relative to other experimental plants and to a widely grown standard cultivar. If a single observation is inconclusive, replicated observations provide a better estimate of its genetic worth.

The goal of lettuce plant breeding is to develop new, unique and superior lettuce cultivars. The breeder initially selects and crosses two or more parental lines, followed by repeated selfing and selection, producing many new genetic combinations. The breeder can theoretically generate billions of different genetic combinations via crossing, selfing and mutations. The breeder has no direct control at the cellular level. Therefore, two breeders will never develop the same line, or even very similar lines, having the same lettuce traits.

Each year, the plant breeder selects the germplasm to advance to the next generation. This germplasm is grown under different geographical, climatic and soil conditions, and further selections are then made, during and at the end of the growing season. The cultivars that are developed are unpredictable. This unpredictability is because the breeder's selection occurs in unique environments, with no control at the DNA level (using conventional breeding procedures), and with millions of different possible genetic combinations being generated. A breeder of ordinary skill in the art cannot predict the final resulting lines he develops, except possibly in a very gross and general fashion. The same breeder cannot produce the same line twice by using the exact same original parents and the same selection techniques. This unpredictability results in the expenditure of large research monies to develop superior lettuce cultivars.

The development of commercial lettuce cultivars requires the development of lettuce varieties, the crossing of these varieties, and the evaluation of the crosses. Pedigree breeding and recurrent selection breeding methods are used to develop cultivars from breeding populations. Breeding programs combine desirable traits from two or more varieties or various broad-based sources into breeding pools from which cultivars are developed by selfing and selection of desired phenotypes. The new cultivars are crossed with other varieties and the hybrids from these crosses are evaluated to determine which have commercial potential.

Pedigree breeding is used commonly for the improvement of self-pollinating crops or inbred lines of cross-pollinating crops. Two parents which possess favorable, complementary traits are crossed to produce an F₁. An F₂ population is produced by selfing one or several F₁'s or by intercrossing two F₁'s (sib mating). Selection of the best individuals is usually begun in the F₂ population; then, beginning in the F₃, the best individuals in the best families are selected. Replicated testing of families, or hybrid combinations involving individuals of these families, often follows in the F₄ generation to improve the effectiveness of selection for traits with low heritability. At an advanced stage of inbreeding (i.e., F₆ and F₇), the best lines or mixtures of phenotypically similar lines are tested for potential release as new cultivars.

Mass and recurrent selections can be used to improve populations of either self- or cross-pollinating crops. A genetically variable population of heterozygous individuals is either identified or created by intercrossing several different parents. The best plants are selected based on individual superiority, outstanding progeny, or excellent combining ability. The selected plants are intercrossed to produce a new population in which further cycles of selection are continued.

Backcross breeding has been used to transfer genes for a simply inherited, highly heritable trait into a desirable homozygous cultivar or line that is the recurrent parent. The source of the trait to be transferred is called the donor parent. The resulting plant is expected to have the attributes of the recurrent parent (e.g., cultivar) and the desirable trait transferred from the donor parent. After the initial cross, individuals possessing the phenotype of the donor parent are selected and repeatedly crossed (backcrossed) to the recurrent parent. The resulting plant is expected to have the attributes of the recurrent parent (e.g., cultivar) and the desirable trait transferred from the donor parent.

The single-seed descent procedure in the strict sense refers to planting a segregating population, harvesting a sample of one seed per plant, and using the one-seed sample to plant the next generation. When the population has been advanced from the F₂ to the desired level of inbreeding, the plants from which lines are derived will each trace to different F₂ individuals. The number of plants in a population declines each generation due to failure of some seeds to germinate or some plants to produce at least one seed. As a result, not all of the F₂ plants originally sampled in the population will be represented by a progeny when generation advance is completed.

In addition to phenotypic observations, the genotype of a plant can also be examined. There are many laboratory-based techniques available for the analysis, comparison and characterization of plant genotype; among these are Isozyme Electrophoresis, Restriction Fragment Length Polymorphisms (RFLPs), Randomly Amplified Polymorphic DNAs (RAPDs), Arbitrarily Primed Polymerase Chain Reaction (AP-PCR), DNA Amplification Fingerprinting (DAF), Sequence Characterized Amplified Regions (SCARs), Amplified Fragment Length polymorphisms (AFLPs), Simple Sequence Repeats (SSRs—which are also referred to as Microsatellites), and Single Nucleotide Polymorphisms (SNPs).

Isozyme Electrophoresis and RFLPs have been widely used to determine genetic composition. Shoemaker and Olsen, (Molecular Linkage Map of Soybean (Glycine max) p 6.131-6.138 in S. J. O'Brien (ed) Genetic Maps: Locus Maps of Complex Genomes, Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press, Cold Spring Harbor, N.Y., (1993)) developed a molecular genetic linkage map that consisted of 25 linkage groups with about 365 RFLP, 11 RAPD, three classical markers and four isozyme loci. See also, Shoemaker, R. C., RFLP Map of Soybean, p 299-309, in Phillips, R. L. and Vasil, I. K., eds. DNA-Based Markers in Plants, Kluwer Academic Press, Dordrecht, the Netherlands (1994).

SSR technology is currently the most efficient and practical marker technology; more marker loci can be routinely used and more alleles per marker locus can be found using SSRs in comparison to RFLPs. For example, Diwan and Cregan described a highly polymorphic microsatellite locus in soybean with as many as 26 alleles. (Diwan, N. and Cregan, P. B., Theor. Appl. Genet 95:22-225,1997.) SNPs may also be used to identify the unique genetic composition of the invention and progeny varieties retaining that unique genetic composition. Various molecular marker techniques may be used in combination to enhance overall resolution.

Molecular markers, which include markers identified through the use of techniques such as Isozyme Electrophoresis, RFLPs, RAPDs, AP-PCR, DAF, SCARs, AFLPs, SSRs, and SNPs, may be used in plant breeding. One use of molecular markers is Quantitative Trait Loci (QTL) mapping. QTL mapping is the use of markers which are known to be closely linked to alleles that have measurable effects on a quantitative trait. Selection in the breeding process is based upon the accumulation of markers linked to the positive effecting alleles and/or the elimination of the markers linked to the negative effecting alleles from the plant's genome.

Molecular markers can also be used during the breeding process for the selection of qualitative traits. For example, markers closely linked to alleles or markers containing sequences within the actual alleles of interest can be used to select plants that contain the alleles of interest during a backcrossing breeding program. The markers can also be used to select toward the genome of the recurrent parent and against the markers of the donor parent. This procedure attempts to minimize the amount of genome from the donor parent that remains in the selected plants. It can also be used to reduce the number of crosses back to the recurrent parent needed in a backcrossing program. The use of molecular markers in the selection process is often called genetic marker enhanced selection or marker-assisted selection. Molecular markers may also be used to identify and exclude certain sources of germplasm as parental varieties or ancestors of a plant by providing a means of tracking genetic profiles through crosses.

Mutation breeding is another method of introducing new traits into lettuce varieties. Mutations that occur spontaneously or are artificially induced can be useful sources of variability for a plant breeder. The goal of artificial mutagenesis is to increase the rate of mutation for a desired characteristic. Mutation rates can be increased by many different means including temperature, long-term seed storage, tissue culture conditions, radiation (such as X-rays, Gamma rays, neutrons, Beta radiation, or ultraviolet radiation), chemical mutagens (such as base analogs like 5-bromo-uracil), antibiotics, alkylating agents (such as sulfur mustards, nitrogen mustards, epoxides, ethyleneamines, sulfates, sulfonates, sulfones, or lactones), azide, hydroxylamine, nitrous acid or acridines. Once a desired trait is observed through mutagenesis the trait may then be incorporated into existing germplasm by traditional breeding techniques. Details of mutation breeding can be found in Principles of Cultivar Development by Fehr, Macmillan Publishing Company, 1993.

The production of double haploids can also be used for the development of homozygous varieties in a breeding program. Double haploids are produced by the doubling of a set of chromosomes from a heterozygous plant to produce a completely homozygous individual. For example, see Wan et al., Theor. Appl. Genet., 77:889-892, 1989.

Descriptions of other breeding methods that are commonly used for different traits and crops can be found in one of several reference books (e.g., Principles of Plant Breeding John Wiley and Son, pp. 115-161, 1960; Allard, 1960; Simmonds, 1979; Sneep et al., 1979; Fehr, 1987; “Carrots and Related Vegetable Umbelliferae”, Rubatzky, V. E., et al., 1999).

Proper testing should detect any major faults and establish the level of superiority or improvement over current cultivars. In addition to showing superior performance, there must be a demand for a new cultivar that is compatible with industry standards or which creates a new market. The introduction of a new cultivar will incur additional costs to the seed producer, the grower, processor and consumer for special advertising and marketing, altered seed and commercial production practices, and new product utilization. The testing preceding release of a new cultivar should take into consideration research and development costs as well as technical superiority of the final cultivar. For seed-propagated cultivars, it must be feasible to produce seed easily and economically.

Lettuce in general and leaf lettuce in particular is an important and valuable vegetable crop. Thus, a continuing goal of lettuce plant breeders is to develop stable, high yielding lettuce cultivars that are agronomically sound. To accomplish this goal, the lettuce breeder must select and develop lettuce plants with traits that result in superior cultivars.

The foregoing examples of the related art and limitations related therewith are intended to be illustrative and not exclusive. Other limitations of the related art will become apparent to those of skill in the art upon a reading of the specification.

SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION

The following embodiments and aspects thereof are described in conjunction with systems, tools, and methods which are meant to be exemplary and illustrative, not limiting in scope. In various embodiments, one or more of the above-described problems have been reduced or eliminated, while other embodiments are directed to other improvements.

According to the invention, there is provided a novel lettuce cultivar designated ‘Steamboat’. This invention thus relates to the seeds of lettuce cultivar ‘Steamboat’, to the plants of lettuce cultivar ‘Steamboat’ and to methods for producing a lettuce plant produced by crossing the lettuce cultivar ‘Steamboat’ with itself or another lettuce plant, to methods for producing a lettuce plant containing in its genetic material one or more transgenes and to the transgenic lettuce plants produced by that method. This invention also relates to methods for producing other lettuce cultivars derived from lettuce cultivar ‘Steamboat’ and to the lettuce cultivar derived by the use of those methods. This invention further relates to hybrid lettuce seeds and plants produced by crossing lettuce cultivar ‘Steamboat’ with another lettuce variety.

In another aspect, the present invention provides regenerable cells for use in tissue culture of lettuce cultivar ‘Steamboat’. The tissue culture will preferably be capable of regenerating plants having essentially all of the physiological and morphological characteristics of the foregoing lettuce plant, and of regenerating plants having substantially the same genotype as the foregoing lettuce plant. Preferably, the regenerable cells in such tissue cultures will be callus, protoplasts, meristematic cells, cotyledons, hypocotyl, leaves, pollen, embryos, roots, root tips, anthers, pistils, flowers and seeds. Still further, the present invention provides lettuce plants regenerated from the tissue cultures of the invention.

Another aspect of the invention is to provide methods for producing other lettuce plants derived from lettuce cultivar ‘Steamboat’. Lettuce cultivars derived by the use of those methods are also part of the invention.

The invention also relates to methods for producing a lettuce plant containing in its genetic material one or more transgenes and to the transgenic lettuce plant produced by those methods.

In another aspect, the present invention provides for single gene converted plants of ‘Steamboat’. The single transferred gene may preferably be a dominant or recessive allele. Preferably, the single transferred gene will confer such traits as male sterility, herbicide resistance, insect resistance, modified fatty acid metabolism, modified carbohydrate metabolism, resistance for bacterial, fungal, or viral disease, male fertility, enhanced nutritional quality and industrial usage. The single gene may be a naturally occurring lettuce gene or a transgene introduced through genetic engineering techniques.

The invention further provides methods for developing lettuce plants in a lettuce plant breeding program using plant breeding techniques including recurrent selection, backcrossing, pedigree breeding, restriction fragment length polymorphism enhanced selection, genetic marker enhanced selection and transformation. Seeds, lettuce plants, and parts thereof, produced by such breeding methods are also part of the invention.

In addition to the exemplary aspects and embodiments described above, further aspects and embodiments will become apparent by reference by study of the following descriptions.

DEFINITIONS

In the description and tables which follow, a number of terms are used. In order to provide a clear and consistent understanding of the specification and claims, including the scope to be given such terms, the following definitions are provided:

Allele. The allele is any of one or more alternative forms of a gene, all of which relate to one trait or characteristic. In a diploid cell or organism, the two alleles of a given gene occupy corresponding loci on a pair of homologous chromosomes.

Backcrossing. Backcrossing is a process in which a breeder repeatedly crosses hybrid progeny back to one of the parents, for example, a first generation hybrid F₁ with one of the parental genotype of the F₁ hybrid.

Bolting. The premature development of a flowering stalk, and subsequent seed, before a plant produces a food crop. Bolting is typically caused by late planting when temperatures are low enough to cause vernalization of the plants.

Bremia lactucae. A common fungus that causes downy mildew in lettuce in cooler growing regions.

Core length. Length of the internal lettuce stem measured from the base of the cut and trimmed head to the tip of the stem.

Cotyledon. One of the first leaves of the embryo of a seed plant; typically one or more in monocotyledons, two in dicotyledons and two or more in gymnosperms.

Essentially all the physiological and morphological characteristics. A plant having essentially all the physiological and morphological characteristics means a plant having the physiological and morphological characteristics of the recurrent parent, except for the characteristics derived from the converted gene.

First water date. The date the seed first receives adequate moisture to germinate. This can and often does equal the planting date.

Head diameter. Diameter of the cut and trimmed head, sliced vertically, and measured at the widest point perpendicular to the stem.

Head height. Height of the cut and trimmed head, sliced vertically, and measured from the base of the cut stem to the cap leaf.

Head weight. Weight of saleable lettuce head, cut and trimmed to market specifications.

Lettuce Mosaic Virus—This is a disease caused by a virus that results in stunted growth as well as unattractive mottling of leaves.

Maturity date. Maturity refers to the stage when the plants are of full size or optimum weight, in marketable form or shape to be of commercial or economic value.

Quantitative Trait Loci. Quantitative Trait Loci (QTL) refers to genetic loci that control to some degree, numerically representable traits that are usually continuously distributed.

Ratio of head height/diameter. Head height divided by the head diameter is an indication of the head shape; <1 is flattened, 1=round, and >1 is pointed.

Regeneration. Regeneration refers to the development of a plant from tissue culture.

RHS. RHS refers to the Royal Horticultural Society of England which publishes an official botanical color chart quantitatively identifying colors according to a defined numbering system, The chart may be purchased from Royal Horticulture Society Enterprise Ltd RHS Garden; Wisley, Woking; Surrey GU236QB, UK.

Single gene converted. Single gene converted or conversion plant refers to plants which are developed by a plant breeding technique called backcrossing or via genetic engineering wherein essentially all of the desired morphological and physiological characteristics of a line are recovered in addition to the single gene transferred into the line via the backcrossing technique or via genetic engineering.

DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION

Lettuce cultivar ‘Steamboat’ is a black seeded, iceberg variety that is adapted to warm season production areas in the central coast valley of California. Specifically, ‘Steamboat’ is well-adapted to the early summer to late summer growing period in central coast valley of California. The objective of the cross was to develop a sure heading iceberg variety with adaptation for the summer in the central coast valley of California with resistance to Downy Mildew (Bremia lactucae) CA pathotype I-VIII, resistance to Corky Root (Sphingomonas suberifaciens) pathotype CAI, and resistance to Lettuce mosaic virus (common Ls1 strain).

Lettuce cultivar ‘Steamboat’ has been evaluated in commercial plantings in lettuce productions areas of California. The variety ‘Steamboat’ has been observed to be stable and uniform for type over three generations from the F₆. ‘Steamboat’ has been tested over several generations and has been found to be uniformly resistance to Downy Mildew (Bremia lactucae) CA pathotype I-VIII, Corky Root (Sphingomonas suberifaciens) pathotype CAI, and Lettuce mosaic virus (common Ls1 strain). ‘Steamboat’ has shown uniformity and stability for the traits, within the limits of environmental influence for the traits. It has been self-pollinated a sufficient number of generations with careful attention to uniformity of plant type. The line has been increased with continued observation for uniformity. No variant traits have been observed or are expected in lettuce cultivar ‘Steamboat’.

Lettuce cultivar ‘Steamboat’ has the following morphologic and other characteristics (based primarily on data collected in San Juan Bautista, Calif.).

TABLE 1 VARIETY DESCRIPTION INFORMATION Plant: Type: Iceberg (crisp) Maturity date: Between 68-71 days after planting for spring planting and between 70-74 days after planting for summer planting Primary regions of adaptation: Southwest (California and/or Arizona desert) and West Coast Seed: Color: Black Light dormancy: Not required Heat dormancy: Not susceptible Cotyledon (to fourth leaf stage): Shape: Intermediate Shape of fourth leaf: Elongated Length/width index of 4^(th) leaf (L/W × 10): 22 Apex: Entire Base: Moderately dentate Undulation: Slight Green color: Dark green Anthocyanin distribution: Absent Rolling: Absent Cupping: Uncupped Reflexing: None Mature Leaves: Margin: Incision depth: Moderate Indentation: Crenate Undulation of the apical margin: Moderate Green color (at harvest maturity): Dark green Hue of green color of outer leaves: Absent Anthocyanin distribution: Absent Size: Medium Glossiness: Moderate Blistering: Moderate Thickness: Intermediate Trichomes: Absent Plant (at market stage): Spread of frame leaves: 60.0 cm Head diameter (market trimmed with single leaf cap): 16.0 cm Head shape: Spherical Head size class: Medium Head per carton: 24 Head weight: 963 grams Head firmness: Firm Butt: Shape: Flat Midrib: Flattened Core: Diameter at base of head: 3.1 cm Ratio of Head diameter/Core diameter: 5.3 Core height from base of head to apex: 5.8 cm Bolting: First water date: Mar. 29, 2008 Number of days from first water date to seed stalk emergence: 114 Time of beginning of bolting: Late compared with variety ‘Embrace’ Class: Slow Height of mature seed stalk: 137 cm Spread of bolter plant: 28 cm Bolter leaves: Curved, medium-green with dentate margins Bolter habit: Terminal inflorescence and later shoots present; basal side shoots absent Disease/Pest Resistance: Viral diseases: Big Vein: Moderately resistance/moderately susceptible Lettuce Mosaic: Resistant Tomato Bushy Stunt (cause of dieback): Resistant Fungal/bacterial diseases: Corky Root Rot, race CAI: Resistant Downy Mildew (Bremia lactucae), races CAI-VIII, Resistant European races BL1, 2, 4-7, 10, 12-18, 20-25: Pests: Nasonovia ribisnigri: Susceptible Physiological stresses: Tipburn: Resistant

Lettuce cultivar ‘Steamboat’ is similar to the commercial lettuce cultivars ‘Embrace’ and ‘E14.4214’, however there are a number of differences. For example, lettuce cultivar ‘Steamboat’ is resistant to Bremia lactucae European races BL 17-20, 22, 24 and 25, lettuce cultivar ‘Embrace’ is susceptible to European races BL 17-20, 22, 24 and 25. Lettuce cultivar ‘Steamboat’ has a black seed color, while lettuce cultivar ‘E14.4214’ has a white seed color.

‘Steamboat’ can additionally be compared to commercial lettuce varieties ‘Telluride’ and ‘Sniper’, however, ‘Steamboat’ can be differentiated from ‘Telluride’ and ‘Sniper’ by the following characteristics: lettuce cultivar ‘Steamboat’ is resistant to Downy Mildew (Bremia Lactucae) CA pathotypes I through VIII while ‘Telluride’ is only resistant to Downy Mildew (Bremia Lactucae) CA pathotypes I through VI and ‘Sniper’ is only resistant to Downy Mildew (Bremia Lactucae) CA pathotypes I through IV; lettuce cultivar ‘Steamboat’ is resistant to Lettuce mosaic virus (common Ls1 strain) while ‘Telluride’ and ‘Sniper’ are both susceptible; lettuce cultivar ‘Steamboat’ produces significantly heavier heads than both ‘Telluride’ and ‘Sniper’; lettuce cultivar ‘Steamboat’ has significantly shorter cores than both ‘Telluride’ and ‘Sniper’; lettuce cultivar ‘Steamboat’ is significantly later in bolting than both ‘Telluride’ and ‘Sniper’; and lettuce cultivar ‘Steamboat’ has a medium-green color resembling RHS 137A at full maturity.

This invention is also directed to methods for producing a lettuce plant by crossing a first parent lettuce plant with a second parent lettuce plant, wherein the first parent lettuce plant or second parent lettuce plant is the lettuce plant from cultivar ‘Steamboat’. Further, both the first parent lettuce plant and second parent lettuce plant may be from cultivar ‘Steamboat’. Therefore, any methods using lettuce cultivar ‘Steamboat’ are part of this invention: selfing, backcrosses, hybrid breeding, and crosses to populations. Any plants produced using lettuce cultivar ‘Steamboat’ as at least one parent are within the scope of this invention.

Additional methods include, but are not limited to, expression vectors introduced into plant tissues using a direct gene transfer method such as microprojectile-mediated delivery, DNA injection, electroporation and the like. More preferably, expression vectors are introduced into plant tissues by using either microprojectile-mediated delivery with a biolistic device or by using Agrobacterium-mediated transformation. Transformed plants obtained with the protoplasm of the invention are intended to be within the scope of this invention.

Further Embodiments of the Invention

With the advent of molecular biological techniques that have allowed the isolation and characterization of genes that encode specific protein products, scientists in the field of plant biology developed a strong interest in engineering the genome of plants to contain and express foreign genes, or additional, or modified versions of native, or endogenous, genes (perhaps driven by different promoters) in order to alter the traits of a plant in a specific manner. Such foreign additional and/or modified genes are referred to herein collectively as “transgenes”. Over the last fifteen to twenty years several methods for producing transgenic plants have been developed, and the present invention, in particular embodiments, also relates to transformed versions of the claimed line.

Plant transformation involves the construction of an expression vector that will function in plant cells. Such a vector comprises DNA comprising a gene under control of or operatively linked to a regulatory element (for example, a promoter). The expression vector may contain one or more such operably linked gene/regulatory element combinations. The vector(s) may be in the form of a plasmid, and can be used alone or in combination with other plasmids, to provide transformed lettuce plants, using transformation methods as described below to incorporate transgenes into the genetic material of the lettuce plant(s).

Expression Vectors for Lettuce Transformation: Marker Genes

Expression vectors include at least one genetic marker, operably linked to a regulatory element (a promoter, for example) that allows transformed cells containing the marker to be either recovered by negative selection, i.e., inhibiting growth of cells that do not contain the selectable marker gene, or by positive selection, i.e., screening for the product encoded by the genetic marker. Many commonly used selectable marker genes for plant transformation are well known in the transformation arts, and include, for example, genes that code for enzymes that metabolically detoxify a selective chemical agent which may be an antibiotic or a herbicide, or genes that encode an altered target which is insensitive to the inhibitor. A few positive selection methods are also known in the art.

One commonly used selectable marker gene for plant transformation is the neomycin phosphotransferase II (nptII) gene, isolated from transposon Tn5, which when placed under the control of plant regulatory signals which confers resistance to kanamycin (Fraley et al., Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A., 80:4803 (1983)). Another commonly used selectable marker gene is the hygromycin phosphotransferase gene which confers resistance to the antibiotic hygromycin (Vanden Elzen et al., Plant Mol. Biol., 5:299 (1985)).

Additional selectable marker genes of bacterial origin that confer resistance to antibiotics include gentamycin acetyl transferase, streptomycin phosphotransferase, aminoglycoside-3′-adenyl transferase, the bleomycin resistance determinant (Hayford et al., Plant Physiol. 86:1216 (1988), Jones et al., Mol. Gen. Genet, 210:86 (1987), Svab et al., Plant Mol. Biol. 14:197 (1990), Hille et al., Plant Mol. Biol. 7:171 (1986)). Other selectable marker genes confer resistance to herbicides such as glyphosate, glufosinate or bromoxynil (Comai et al., Nature 317:741-744 (1985), Gordon-Kamm et al., Plant Cell 2:603-618 (1990) and Stalker et al., Science 242:419-423 (1988)).

Selectable marker genes for plant transformation that are not of bacterial origin include, for example, mouse dihydrofolate reductase, plant 5-enolpyruvylshikimate-3-phosphate synthase and plant acetolactate synthase (Eichholtz et al., Somatic Cell Mol. Genet. 13:67 (1987), Shah et al., Science 233:478 (1986), Charest et al., Plant Cell Rep. 8:643 (1990)).

Another class of marker genes for plant transformation require screening of presumptively transformed plant cells rather than direct genetic selection of transformed cells for resistance to a toxic substance such as an antibiotic. These genes are particularly useful to quantify or visualize the spatial pattern of expression of a gene in specific tissues and are frequently referred to as reporter genes because they can be fused to a gene or gene regulatory sequence for the investigation of gene expression. Commonly used genes for screening presumptively transformed cells include α-glucuronidase (GUS), α-galactosidase, luciferase and chloramphenicol, acetyltransferase (Jefferson, R. A., Plant Mol. Biol. Rep. 5:387 (1987), Teeri et al., EMBO J. 8:343 (1989), Koncz et al., Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci U.S.A. 84:131 (1987), DeBlock et al., EMBO J. 3:1681 (1984)).

In vivo methods for visualizing GUS activity that do not require destruction of plant tissues are available (Molecular Probes publication 2908, IMAGENE GREEN, p. 1-4(1993) and Naleway et al., J. Cell Biol 115:151a (1991)). However, these in vivo methods for visualizing GUS activity have not proven useful for recovery of transformed cells because of low sensitivity, high fluorescent backgrounds and limitations associated with the use of luciferase genes as selectable markers.

More recently, a gene encoding Green Fluorescent Protein (GFP) has been utilized as a marker for gene expression in prokaryotic and eukaryotic cells (Chalfie et al., Science 263:802 (1994)). GFP and mutants of GFP may be used as screenable markers.

Expression Vectors for Lettuce Transformation: Promoters

Genes included in expression vectors must be driven by a nucleotide sequence comprising a regulatory element, for example, a promoter. Several types of promoters are now well known in the transformation arts, as are other regulatory elements that can be used alone or in combination with promoters.

As used herein, “promoter” includes reference to a region of DNA upstream from the start of transcription and involved in recognition and binding of RNA polymerase and other proteins to initiate transcription. A “plant promoter” is a promoter capable of initiating transcription in plant cells. Examples of promoters under developmental control include promoters that preferentially initiate transcription in certain tissues, such as leaves, roots, seeds, fibers, xylem vessels, tracheids, or sclerenchyma. Such promoters are referred to as “tissue-preferred”. Promoters which initiate transcription only in certain tissue are referred to as “tissue-specific”. A “cell type” specific promoter primarily drives expression in certain cell types in one or more organs, for example, vascular cells in roots or leaves. An “inducible” promoter is a promoter which is under environmental control. Examples of environmental conditions that may effect transcription by inducible promoters include anaerobic conditions or the presence of light. Tissue-specific, tissue-preferred, cell type specific, and inducible promoters constitute the class of “non-constitutive” promoters. A “constitutive” promoter is a promoter which is active under most environmental conditions.

A. Inducible Promoters

An inducible promoter is operably linked to a gene for expression in lettuce. Optionally, the inducible promoter is operably linked to a nucleotide sequence encoding a signal sequence which is operably linked to a gene for expression in lettuce. With an inducible promoter the rate of transcription increases in response to an inducing agent.

Any inducible promoter can be used in the instant invention. See Ward et al., Plant Mol. Biol. 22:361-366 (1993). Exemplary inducible promoters include, but are not limited to, that from the ACEI system which responds to copper (Meft et al., PNAS 90:4567-4571 (1993)); In2 gene from maize which responds to benzenesulfonamide herbicide safeners (Hershey et al., Mol. Gen Genetics 227:229-237 (1991) and Gatz et al., Mol. Gen. Genetics 243:32-38 (1994)) or Tet repressor from Tn10 (Gatz et al., Mol. Gen. Genetics 227:229-237 (1991). A particularly preferred inducible promoter is a promoter that responds to an inducing agent to which plants do not normally respond. An exemplary inducible promoter is the inducible promoter from a steroid hormone gene, the transcriptional activity of which is induced by a glucocorticosteroid hormone. Schena et al., Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 88:0421 (1991).

B. Constitutive Promoters

A constitutive promoter is operably linked to a gene for expression in lettuce or the constitutive promoter is operably linked to a nucleotide sequence encoding a signal sequence which is operably linked to a gene for expression in lettuce.

Many different constitutive promoters can be utilized in the instant invention. Exemplary constitutive promoters include, but are not limited to, the promoters from plant viruses such as the 35S promoter from CaMV (Odell et al., Nature 313:810-812 (1985) and the promoters from such genes as rice actin (McElroy et al., Plant Cell 2:163-171 (1990)); ubiquitin (Christensen et al., Plant Mol. Biol. 12:619-632 (1989) and Christensen et al., Plant Mol. Biol. 18:675-689 (1992)); pEMU (Last et al., Theor. Appl. Genet. 81:581-588 (1991)); MAS (Velten et al., EMBO J. 3:2723-2730 (1984)) and maize H3 histone (Lepetit et al., Mol. Gen. Genetics 231:276-285 (1992) and Atanassova et al., Plant Journal 2 (3): 291-300 (1992)). The ALS promoter, Xba1/NcoI fragment 5′ to the Brassica napus ALS3 structural gene (or a nucleotide sequence similarity to said Xba1/NcoI fragment), represents a particularly useful constitutive promoter. See PCT application WO 96/30530.

C. Tissue-Specific or Tissue-Preferred Promoters

A tissue-specific promoter is operably linked to a gene for expression in lettuce. Optionally, the tissue-specific promoter is operably linked to a nucleotide sequence encoding a signal sequence which is operably linked to a gene for expression in lettuce. Plants transformed with a gene of interest operably linked to a tissue-specific promoter produce the protein product of the transgene exclusively, or preferentially, in a specific tissue.

Any tissue-specific or tissue-preferred promoter can be utilized in the instant invention. Exemplary tissue-specific or tissue-preferred promoters include, but are not limited to, a root-preferred promoter, such as that from the phaseolin gene (Murai et al., Science 23:476-482 (1983) and Sengupta-Gopalan et al., Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 82:3320-3324 (1985)); a leaf-specific and light-induced promoter such as that from cab or rubisco (Simpson et al., EMBO J. 4(11):2723-2729 (1985) and Timko et al., Nature 318:579-582 (1985)); an anther-specific promoter such as that from LAT52 (Twell et al., Mol. Gen. Genetics 217:240-245 (1989)); a pollen-specific promoter such as that from Zm13 (Guerrero et al., Mol. Gen. Genetics 244:161-168 (1993)) or a microspore-preferred promoter such as that from apg (Twell et al., Sex. Plant Reprod. 6:217-224 (1993)).

Signal Sequences for Targeting Proteins to Subcellular Compartments

Transport of protein produced by transgenes to a subcellular compartment such as the chloroplast, vacuole, peroxisome, glyoxysome, cell wall or mitochondrion or for secretion into the apoplast, is accomplished by means of operably linking the nucleotide sequence encoding a signal sequence to the 5′ and/or 3′ region of a gene encoding the protein of interest. Targeting sequences at the 5′ and/or 3′ end of the structural gene may determine, during protein synthesis and processing, where the encoded protein is ultimately compartmentalized.

The presence of a signal sequence directs a polypeptide to either an intracellular organelle or subcellular compartment or for secretion to the apoplast. Many signal sequences are known in the art. See, for example Becker et al., Plant Mol. Biol. 20:49 (1992), Close, P. S., Master's Thesis, Iowa State University (1993), Knox, C., et al., “Structure and Organization of Two Divergent Alpha-Amylase Genes from Barley”, Plant Mol. Biol. 9:3-17 (1987), Lerner et al., Plant Physiol. 91:124-129 (1989), Fontes et al., Plant Cell 3:483-496 (1991), Matsuoka et al., Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 88:834 (1991), Gould et al., J. Cell. Biol. 108:1657 (1989), Creissen et al., Plant J. 2:129 (1991), Kalderon, et al., A short amino acid sequence able to specify nuclear location, Cell 39:499-509 (1984), Steifel, et al., Expression of a maize cell wall hydroxyproline-rich glycoprotein gene in early leaf and root vascular differentiation, Plant Cell 2:785-793 (1990).

Foreign Protein Genes and Agronomic Genes

With transgenic plants according to the present invention, a foreign protein can be produced in commercial quantities. Thus, techniques for the selection and propagation of transformed plants, which are well understood in the art, yield a plurality of transgenic plants which are harvested in a conventional manner, and a foreign protein then can be extracted from a tissue of interest or from total biomass. Protein extraction from plant biomass can be accomplished by known methods which are discussed, for example, by Heney and Orr, Anal. Biochem. 114:92-6 (1981).

According to a preferred embodiment, the transgenic plant provided for commercial production of foreign protein is lettuce. In another preferred embodiment, the biomass of interest is seed. For the relatively small number of transgenic plants that show higher levels of expression, a genetic map can be generated, primarily via conventional RFLP, PCR and SSR analysis, which identifies the approximate chromosomal location of the integrated DNA molecule. For exemplary methodologies in this regard, see Glick and Thompson, Methods in Plant Molecular Biology and Biotechnology, CRC Press, Boca Raton 269:284 (1993). Map information concerning chromosomal location is useful for proprietary protection of a subject transgenic plant. If unauthorized propagation is undertaken and crosses made with other germplasm, the map of the integration region can be compared to similar maps for suspect plants, to determine if the latter have a common parentage with the subject plant. Map comparisons would involve hybridizations, RFLP, PCR, SSR and sequencing, all of which are conventional techniques.

Likewise, by means of the present invention, agronomic genes can be expressed in transformed plants. More particularly, plants can be genetically engineered to express various phenotypes of agronomic interest. Exemplary genes implicated in this regard include, but are not limited to, those categorized below:

1. Genes that Confer Resistance to Pests or Disease and that Encode:

A. Plant disease resistance genes. Plant defenses are often activated by specific interaction between the product of a disease resistance gene (R) in the plant and the product of a corresponding avirulence (Avr) gene in the pathogen. A plant line can be transformed with a cloned resistance gene to engineer plants that are resistant to specific pathogen strains. See, for example Jones et al., Science 266:789 (1994) (cloning of the tomato Cf-9 gene for resistance to Cladosporium fulvum); Martin et al., Science 262:1432 (1993) (tomato Pto gene for resistance to Pseudomonas syringae pv. tomato encodes a protein kinase); Mindrinos et al., Cell 78:1089 (1994) (Arabidopsis RSP2 gene for resistance to Pseudomonas syringae).

B. A Bacillus thuringiensis protein, a derivative thereof or a synthetic polypeptide modeled thereon. See, for example, Geiser et al., Gene 48:109 (1986), who disclose the cloning and nucleotide sequence of a Bt δ-endotoxin gene. Moreover, DNA molecules encoding δ-endotoxin genes can be purchased from American Type Culture Collection, Manassas, Va., for example, under ATCC Accession Nos. 40098, 67136, 31995 and 31998.

C. A lectin. See, for example, the disclosure by Van Damme et al., Plant Molec. Biol. 24:25 (1994), who disclose the nucleotide sequences of several Clivia miniata mannose-binding lectin genes.

D. A vitamin-binding protein such as avidin. See PCT application U.S. Ser. No. 93/06487, the contents of which are hereby incorporated by reference. The application teaches the use of avidin and avidin homologues as larvicides against insect pests.

E. An enzyme inhibitor, for example, a protease or proteinase inhibitor or an amylase inhibitor. See, for example, Abe et al., J. Biol. Chem. 262:16793 (1987) (nucleotide sequence of rice cysteine proteinase inhibitor), Huub et al., Plant Molec. Biol. 21:985 (1993) (nucleotide sequence of cDNA encoding tobacco proteinase inhibitor I), Sumitani et al., Biosci. Biotech. Biochem. 57:1243 (1993) (nucleotide sequence of Streptomyces nitrosporeus α-amylase inhibitor).

F. An insect-specific hormone or pheromone such as an ecdysteroid and juvenile hormone, a variant thereof, a mimetic based thereon, or an antagonist or agonist thereof. See, for example, the disclosure by Hammock et al., Nature 344:458 (1990), of baculovirus expression of cloned juvenile hormone esterase, an inactivator of juvenile hormone.

G. An insect-specific peptide or neuropeptide which, upon expression, disrupts the physiology of the affected pest. For example, see the disclosures of Regan, J. Biol. Chem. 269:9 (1994) (expression cloning yields DNA coding for insect diuretic hormone receptor), and Pratt et al., Biochem. Biophys. Res. Comm. 163:1243 (1989) (an allostatin is identified in Diploptera puntata). See also U.S. Pat. No. 5,266,317 to Tomalski et al., who disclose genes encoding insect-specific, paralytic neurotoxins.

H. An insect-specific venom produced in nature by a snake, a wasp, etc. For example, see Pang et al., Gene 116:165 (1992), for disclosure of heterologous expression in plants of a gene coding for a scorpion insectotoxic peptide.

I. An enzyme responsible for a hyper-accumulation of a monoterpene, a sesquiterpene, a steroid, hydroxamic acid, a phenylpropanoid derivative or another non-protein molecule with insecticidal activity.

J. An enzyme involved in the modification, including the post-translational modification, of a biologically active molecule; for example, a glycolytic enzyme, a proteolytic enzyme, a lipolytic enzyme, a nuclease, a cyclase, a transaminase, an esterase, a hydrolase, a phosphatase, a kinase, a phosphorylase, a polymerase, an elastase, a chitinase and a glucanase, whether natural or synthetic. See PCT application WO 93/02197 in the name of Scott et al., which discloses the nucleotide sequence of a callase gene. DNA molecules which contain chitinase-encoding sequences can be obtained, for example, from the ATCC under Accession Nos. 39637 and 67152. See also Kramer et al., Insect Biochem. Molec. Biol. 23:691 (1993), who teach the nucleotide sequence of a cDNA encoding tobacco hornworm chitinase, and Kawalleck et al., Plant Molec. Biol. 21:673 (1993), who provide the nucleotide sequence of the parsley ubi4-2 polyubiquitin gene.

K. A molecule that stimulates signal transduction. For example, see the disclosure by Botella et al., Plant Molec. Biol. 24:757 (1994), of nucleotide sequences for mung bean calmodulin cDNA clones, and Griess et al., Plant Physiol. 104:1467 (1994), who provide the nucleotide sequence of a maize calmodulin cDNA clone.

L. A hydrophobic moment peptide. See PCT application WO 95/16776 (disclosure of peptide derivatives of tachyplesin which inhibit fungal plant pathogens) and PCT application WO 95/18855 (teaches synthetic antimicrobial peptides that confer disease resistance), the respective contents of which are hereby incorporated by reference.

M. A membrane permease, a channel former or a channel blocker. For example, see the disclosure of Jaynes et al., Plant Sci 89:43 (1993), of heterologous expression of a cecropin-β, lytic peptide analog to render transgenic tobacco plants resistant to Pseudomonas solanacearum.

N. A viral-invasive protein or a complex toxin derived therefrom. For example, the accumulation of viral coat proteins in transformed plant cells imparts resistance to viral infection and/or disease development effected by the virus from which the coat protein gene is derived, as well as by related viruses. See Beachy et al., Ann. rev. Phytopathol. 28:451 (1990). Coat protein-mediated resistance has been conferred upon transformed plants against alfalfa mosaic virus, cucumber mosaic virus, tobacco streak virus, potato virus X, potato virus Y, tobacco etch virus, tobacco rattle virus and tobacco mosaic virus. Id.

O. An insect-specific antibody or an immunotoxin derived therefrom. Thus, an antibody targeted to a critical metabolic function in the insect gut would inactivate an affected enzyme, killing the insect. See Taylor et al., Abstract #497, Seventh Int'l Symposium on Molecular Plant-Microbe Interactions (Edinburgh, Scotland) (1994) (enzymatic inactivation in transgenic tobacco via production of single-chain antibody fragments).

P. A virus-specific antibody. See, for example, Tavladoraki et al., Nature 366:469 (1993), who show that transgenic plants expressing recombinant antibody genes are protected from virus attack.

Q. A developmental-arrestive protein produced in nature by a pathogen or a parasite. Thus, fungal endo-α-1,4-D-polygalacturonases facilitate fungal colonization and plant nutrient release by solubilizing plant cell wall homo-α-1,4-D-galacturonase. See Lamb et al., Bio/Technology 10:1436 (1992). The cloning and characterization of a gene which encodes a bean endopolygalacturonase-inhibiting protein is described by Toubart et al., Plant J. 2:367 (1992).

R. A developmental-arrestive protein produced in nature by a plant. For example, Logemann et al., Bio/Technology 10:305 (1992), have shown that transgenic plants expressing the barley ribosome-inactivating gene have an increased resistance to fungal disease.

S. A lettuce mosaic potyvirus (LMV) coat protein gene introduced into Lactuca sativa in order to increase its resistance to LMV infection. See Dinant et al., Molecular Breeding. 1997, 3: 1, 75-86.

2. Genes that Confer Resistance to an Herbicide:

A. An herbicide that inhibits the growing point or meristem, such as an imidazolinone or a sulfonylurea. Exemplary genes in this category code for mutant ALS and AHAS enzyme as described, for example, by Lee et al., EMBO J. 7:1241 (1988), and Miki et al., Theor. Appl. Genet. 80:449 (1990), respectively.

B. Glyphosate (resistance conferred by mutant 5-enolpyruvlshikimate-3-phosphate synthase (EPSPS) and aroA genes, respectively) and other phosphono compounds such as glufosinate (phosphinothricin acetyl transferase (PAT) and Streptomyces hygroscopicus phosphinothricin-acetyl transferase PAT bar genes), and pyridinoxy or phenoxy proprionic acids and cyclohexones (ACCase inhibitor-encoding genes). See, for example, U.S. Pat. No. 4,940,835 to Shah, et al., which discloses the nucleotide sequence of a form of EPSPS which can confer glyphosate resistance. A DNA molecule encoding a mutant aroA gene can be obtained under ATCC accession number 39256, and the nucleotide sequence of the mutant gene is disclosed in U.S. Pat. No. 4,769,061 to Comai. See also Umaballava-Mobapathie in Transgenic Research. 1999, 8: 1, 33-44 that discloses Lactuca sativa resistant to glufosinate. European patent application No. 0 333 033 to Kumada et al., and U.S. Pat. No. 4,975,374 to Goodman et al., disclose nucleotide sequences of glutamine synthetase genes which confer resistance to herbicides such as L-phosphinothricin. The nucleotide sequence of a phosphinothricin-acetyl-transferase gene is provided in European application No. 0 242 246 to Leemans et al., DeGreef et al., Bio/Technology 7:61 (1989), describe the production of transgenic plants that express chimeric bar genes coding for phosphinothricin acetyl transferase activity. Exemplary of genes conferring resistance to phenoxy proprionic acids and cyclohexones, such as sethoxydim and haloxyfop are the Acc1 -S1, Acc1 -S2 and Acc1 -S3 genes described by Marshall et al., Theor. Appl. Genet 83:435 (1992).

C. An herbicide that inhibits photosynthesis, such as a triazine (psbA and gs+ genes) and a benzonitrile (nitrilase gene). Przibilla et al., Plant Cell 3:169 (1991), describe the transformation of Chlamydomonas with plasmids encoding mutant psbA genes. Nucleotide sequences for nitrilase genes are disclosed in U.S. Pat. No. 4,810,648 to Stalker, and DNA molecules containing these genes are available under ATCC Accession Nos. 53435, 67441, and 67442. Cloning and expression of DNA coding for a glutathione S-transferase is described by Hayes et al., Biochem. J. 285:173 (1992).

D. Acetohydroxy acid synthase, which has been found to make plants that express this enzyme resistant to multiple types of herbicides, has been introduced into a variety of plants. See Hattori et al., Mol. Gen. Genet 246:419,1995. Other genes that confer tolerance to herbicides include a gene encoding a chimeric protein of rat cytochrome P4507A1 and yeast NADPH-cytochrome P450 oxidoreductase (Shiota et al., Plant Physiol., 106:17, 1994), genes for glutathione reductase and superoxide dismutase (Aono et al., Plant Cell Physiol. 36:1687, 1995), and genes for various phosphotransferases (Datta et al., Plant Mol. Biol. 20:619, 1992).

E. Protoporphyrinogen oxidase (protox) is necessary for the production of chlorophyll, which is necessary for all plant survival. The protox enzyme serves as the target for a variety of herbicidal compounds. These herbicides also inhibit growth of all the different species of plants present, causing their total destruction. The development of plants containing altered protox activity which are resistant to these herbicides are described in U.S. Pat. Nos. 6,288,306; 6,282,837; 5,767,373; and international publication WO 01/12825.

3. Genes that Confer or Contribute to a Value-Added Trait, Such as:

A. Increased iron content of the lettuce, for example by transforming a plant with a soybean ferritin gene as described in Goto et al., Acta Horticulturae. 2000, 521, 101-109.

B. Decreased nitrate content of leaves, for example by transforming a lettuce with a gene coding for a nitrate reductase. See for example Curtis et al., Plant Cell Report. 1999, 18: 11, 889-896.

C. Increased sweetness of the lettuce by transferring a gene coding for monellin that elicits a flavor 100,000 times sweeter than sugar on a molar basis. See Penarrubia et al., Biotechnology. 1992, 10: 561-564.

D. Modified fatty acid metabolism, for example, by transforming a plant with an antisense gene of stearyl-ACP desaturase to increase stearic acid content of the plant. See Knultzon et al., Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 89:2625 (1992).

E. Modified carbohydrate composition effected, for example, by transforming plants with a gene coding for an enzyme that alters the branching pattern of starch. See Shiroza et al., J. Bacteriol. 170:810 (1988) (nucleotide sequence of Streptococcus mutants fructosyltransferase gene), Steinmetz et al., Mol. Gen. Genet. 20:220 (1985) (nucleotide sequence of Bacillus subtilis levansucrase gene), Pen et al., Bio/Technology 10:292 (1992) (production of transgenic plants that express Bacillus lichenifonnis α-amylase), Elliot et al., Plant Molec. Biol. 21:515 (1993) (nucleotide sequences of tomato invertase genes), Søgaard et al., J. Biol. Chem. 268:22480 (1993) (site-directed mutagenesis of barley a-amylase gene), and Fisher et al., Plant Physiol. 102:1045 (1993) (maize endosperm starch branching enzyme II).

4. Genes that Control Male-Sterility

A. Introduction of a deacetylase gene under the control of a tapetum-specific promoter and with the application of the chemical N—Ac-PPT. See international publication WO 01/29237.

B. Introduction of various stamen-specific promoters. See international publications WO 92/13956 and WO 92/13957.

C. Introduction of the barnase and the barstar genes. See Paul et al., Plant Mol. Biol. 19:611-622, 1992).

Methods for Lettuce Transformation

Numerous methods for plant transformation have been developed, including biological and physical, plant transformation protocols. See, for example, Miki et al., “Procedures for Introducing Foreign DNA into Plants” in Methods in Plant Molecular Biology and Biotechnology, Glick B. R. and Thompson, J. E. Eds. (CRC Press, Inc., Boca Raton, 1993) pages 67-88. In addition, expression vectors and in vitro culture methods for plant cell or tissue transformation and regeneration of plants are available. See, for example, Gruber et al., “Vectors for Plant Transformation” in Methods in Plant Molecular Biology and Biotechnology, Glick B. R. and Thompson, J. E. Eds. (CRC Press, Inc., Boca Raton, 1993) pages 89-119.

A. Agrobacterium-Mediated Transformation

One method for introducing an expression vector into plants is based on the natural transformation system of Agrobacterium. See, for example, Horsch et al., Science 227:1229 (1985), Curtis et al., Journal of Experimental Botany. 1994, 45: 279, 1441-1449, Torres et al., Plant cell Tissue and Organic Culture. 1993, 34: 3, 279-285, Dinant et al., Molecular Breeding. 1997, 3: 1, 75-86. A. tumefaciens and A. rhizogenes are plant pathogenic soil bacteria which genetically transform plant cells. The Ti and Ri plasmids of A. tumefaciens and A. rhizogenes, respectively, carry genes responsible for genetic transformation of the plant. See, for example, Kado, C. I., Crit. Rev. Plant Sci. 10:1 (1991). Descriptions of Agrobacterium vector systems and methods for Agrobacterium-mediated gene transfer are provided by Gruber et al., supra, Miki et al., supra, and Moloney et al., Plant Cell Reports 8:238 (1989). See also, U.S. Pat. No. 5,591,616 issued Jan. 7, 1997.

B. Direct Gene Transfer

Several methods of plant transformation collectively referred to as direct gene transfer have been developed as an alternative to Agrobacterium-mediated transformation. A generally applicable method of plant transformation is microprojectile-mediated transformation wherein DNA is carried on the surface of microprojectiles measuring 1 to 4 μm. The expression vector is introduced into plant tissues with a biolistic device that accelerates the microprojectiles to speeds of 300 to 600 m/s which is sufficient to penetrate plant cell walls and membranes. Russell, D. R., et al. Pl. Cell. Rep. 12(3, January), 165-169 (1993), Aragao, F. J. L., et al. Plant Mol. Biol. 20(2, October), 357-359 (1992), Aragao, F. J. L., et al. Pl. Cell. Rep. 12(9, July), 483-490 (1993). Aragao, Theor. Appl. Genet. 93: 142-150 (1996), Kim, J.; Minamikawa, T. Plant Science 117: 131-138 (1996), Sanford et al., Part. Sci. Technol. 5:27 (1987), Sanford, J. C., Trends Biotech. 6:299 (1988), Klein et al., Bio/Technology 6:559-563 (1988), Sanford, J. C., Physiol Plant 7:206 (1990), Klein et al., Biotechnology 10:268 (1992).

Another method for physical delivery of DNA to plants is sonication of target cells. Zhang et al., Bio/Technology 9:996 (1991). Alternatively, liposome and spheroplast fusion have been used to introduce expression vectors into plants. Deshayes et al., EMBO J., 4:2731 (1985), Christou et al., Proc Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 84:3962 (1987). Direct uptake of DNA into protoplasts using CaCl₂ precipitation, polyvinyl alcohol or poly-L-ornithine has also been reported. Hain et al., Mol. Gen. Genet. 199:161 (1985) and Draper et al., Plant Cell Physiol. 23:451 (1982). Electroporation of protoplasts and whole cells and tissues have also been described. Saker, M.; Kuhne, T. Biologia Plantarum 40(4): 507-514 (1997/98), Donn et al., In Abstracts of VIIth International Congress on Plant Cell and Tissue Culture IAPTC, A2-38, p 53 (1990); D'Halluin et al., Plant Cell 4:1495-1505 (1992) and Spencer et al., Plant Mol. Biol. 24:51-61 (1994). See also Chupean et al., Biotechnology. 1989, 7: 5, 503-508.

Following transformation of lettuce target tissues, expression of the above-described selectable marker genes allows for preferential selection of transformed cells, tissues and/or plants, using regeneration and selection methods now well known in the art.

The foregoing methods for transformation would typically be used for producing a transgenic line. The transgenic line could then be crossed, with another (non-transformed or transformed) line, in order to produce a new transgenic lettuce line. Alternatively, a genetic trait which has been engineered into a particular lettuce cultivar using the foregoing transformation techniques could be moved into another line using traditional backcrossing techniques that are well known in the plant breeding arts. For example, a backcrossing approach could be used to move an engineered trait from a public, non-elite inbred line into an elite inbred line, or from an inbred line containing a foreign gene in its genome into an inbred line or lines which do not contain that gene. As used herein, “crossing” can refer to a simple X by Y cross, or the process of backcrossing, depending on the context.

Single-Gene Conversions

When the terms lettuce plant, cultivar or lettuce line are used in the context of the present invention, this also includes any single gene conversions of that line. The term “single gene converted plant” as used herein refers to those lettuce plants which are developed by a plant breeding technique called backcrossing wherein essentially all of the desired morphological and physiological characteristics of a cultivar are recovered in addition to the single gene transferred into the line via the backcrossing technique. Backcrossing methods can be used with the present invention to improve or introduce a characteristic into the line. The term “backcrossing” as used herein refers to the repeated crossing of a hybrid progeny back to one of the parental lettuce plants for that line, backcrossing 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 or more times to the recurrent parent. The parental lettuce plant which contributes the gene for the desired characteristic is termed the nonrecurrent or donor parent. This terminology refers to the fact that the nonrecurrent parent is used one time in the backcross protocol and therefore does not recur. The parental lettuce plant to which the gene or genes from the nonrecurrent parent are transferred is known as the recurrent parent as it is used for several rounds in the backcrossing protocol (Poehiman & Sleper, 1994; Fehr, 1987). In a typical backcross protocol, the original cultivar of interest (recurrent parent) is crossed to a second line (nonrecurrent parent) that carries the single gene of interest to be transferred. The resulting progeny from this cross are then crossed again to the recurrent parent and the process is repeated until a lettuce plant is obtained wherein essentially all of the desired morphological and physiological characteristics of the recurrent parent are recovered in the converted plant, in addition to the single transferred gene from the nonrecurrent parent.

The selection of a suitable recurrent parent is an important step for a successful backcrossing procedure. The goal of a backcross protocol is to alter or substitute a single trait or characteristic in the original line. To accomplish this, a single gene of the recurrent cultivar is modified or substituted with the desired gene from the nonrecurrent parent, while retaining essentially all of the rest of the desired genetic, and therefore the desired physiological and morphological, constitution of the original line. The choice of the particular nonrecurrent parent will depend on the purpose of the backcross, one of the major purposes is to add some commercially desirable, agronomically important trait to the plant. The exact backcrossing protocol will depend on the characteristic or trait being altered to determine an appropriate testing protocol. Although backcrossing methods are simplified when the characteristic being transferred is a dominant allele, a recessive allele may also be transferred. In this instance it may be necessary to introduce a test of the progeny to determine if the desired characteristic has been successfully transferred.

Many single gene traits have been identified that are not regularly selected for in the development of a new line but that can be improved by backcrossing techniques. Single gene traits may or may not be transgenic, examples of these traits include but are not limited to, male sterility, modified fatty acid metabolism, modified carbohydrate metabolism, herbicide resistance, resistance for bacterial, fungal, or viral disease, insect resistance, enhanced nutritional quality, industrial usage, yield stability and yield enhancement. These genes are generally inherited through the nucleus. Several of these single gene traits are described in U.S. Pat. Nos. 5,777,196, 5,948,957 and 5,969,212, the disclosures of which are specifically hereby incorporated by reference.

Tissue Culture

Further reproduction of the variety can occur by tissue culture and regeneration. Tissue culture of various tissues of lettuce and regeneration of plants therefrom is well known and widely published. For example, reference may be had to Teng et al., HortScience. 1992, 27: 9, 1030-1032 Teng et al., HortScience. 1993, 28: 6, 669-1671, Zhang et al., Journal of Genetics and Breeding. 1992, 46: 3, 287-290, Webb et al., Plant Cell Tissue and Organ Culture. 1994, 38: 1, 77-79, Curtis et al., Journal of Experimental Botany. 1994, 45: 279, 1441-1449, Nagata et al., Journal for the American Society for Horticultural Science. 2000, 125: 6, 669-672, and Ibrahim et al., Plant Cell, Tissue and Organ Culture. (1992), 28(2): 139-145. It is clear from the literature that the state of the art is such that these methods of obtaining plants are routinely used and have a very high rate of success. Thus, another aspect of this invention is to provide cells which upon growth and differentiation produce lettuce plants having the physiological and morphological characteristics of variety ‘Steamboat’.

As used herein, the term “tissue culture” indicates a composition comprising isolated cells of the same or a different type or a collection of such cells organized into parts of a plant. Exemplary types of tissue cultures are protoplasts, calli, meristematic cells, and plant cells that can generate tissue culture that are intact in plants or parts of plants, such as leaves, pollen, embryos, roots, root tips, anthers, pistils, flowers, seeds, petioles, suckers and the like. Means for preparing and maintaining plant tissue culture are well known in the art. By way of example, a tissue culture comprising organs has been used to produce regenerated plants. U.S. Pat. Nos. 5,959,185; 5,973,234 and 5,977,445 describe certain techniques, the disclosures of which are incorporated herein by reference.

Additional Breeding Methods

This invention also is directed to methods for producing a lettuce plant by crossing a first parent lettuce plant with a second parent lettuce plant wherein the first or second parent lettuce plant is a lettuce plant of cultivar ‘Steamboat’. Further, both first and second parent lettuce plants can come from lettuce cultivar ‘Steamboat’. Thus, any such methods using lettuce cultivar ‘Steamboat’ are part of this invention: selfing, backcrosses, hybrid production, crosses to populations, and the like. All plants produced using lettuce cultivar ‘Steamboat’ as at least one parent are within the scope of this invention, including those developed from cultivars derived from lettuce cultivar ‘Steamboat’. Advantageously, this lettuce cultivar could be used in crosses with other, different, lettuce plants to produce the first generation (F₁) lettuce hybrid seeds and plants with superior characteristics. The cultivar of the invention can also be used for transformation where exogenous genes are introduced and expressed by the cultivar of the invention. Genetic variants created either through traditional breeding methods using lettuce cultivar ‘Steamboat’ or through transformation of cultivar ‘Steamboat’ by any of a number of protocols known to those of skill in the art are intended to be within the scope of this invention.

The following describes breeding methods that may be used with lettuce cultivar ‘Steamboat’ in the development of further lettuce plants. One such embodiment is a method for developing cultivar ‘Steamboat’ progeny lettuce plants in a lettuce plant breeding program comprising: obtaining the lettuce plant, or a part thereof, of cultivar ‘Steamboat’, utilizing said plant or plant part as a source of breeding material, and selecting a lettuce cultivar ‘Steamboat’ progeny plant with molecular markers in common with cultivar ‘Steamboat’ and/or with morphological and/or physiological characteristics selected from the characteristics listed in Table 1. Breeding steps that may be used in the lettuce plant breeding program include pedigree breeding, backcrossing, mutation breeding, and recurrent selection. In conjunction with these steps, techniques such as RFLP-enhanced selection, genetic marker enhanced selection (for example SSR markers) and the making of double haploids may be utilized.

Another method involves producing a population of lettuce cultivar ‘Steamboat’ progeny lettuce plants, comprising crossing cultivar ‘Steamboat’ with another lettuce plant, thereby producing a population of lettuce plants, which, on average, derive 50% of their alleles from lettuce cultivar ‘Steamboat’. A plant of this population may be selected and repeatedly selfed or sibbed with a lettuce cultivar resulting from these successive filial generations. One embodiment of this invention is the lettuce cultivar produced by this method and that has obtained at least 50% of its alleles from lettuce cultivar ‘Steamboat’.

One of ordinary skill in the art of plant breeding would know how to evaluate the traits of two plant varieties to determine if there is no significant difference between the two traits expressed by those varieties. For example, see Fehr and Walt, Principles of Cultivar Development, p 261-286 (1987). Thus the invention includes lettuce cultivar ‘Steamboat’ progeny lettuce plants comprising a combination of at least two cultivar ‘Steamboat’ traits selected from the group consisting of those listed in Table 1 or the cultivar ‘Steamboat’ combination of traits listed in the Summary of the Invention, so that said progeny lettuce plant is not significantly different for said traits than lettuce cultivar ‘Steamboat’ as determined at the 5% significance level when grown in the same environmental conditions. Using techniques described herein, molecular markers may be used to identify said progeny plant as a lettuce cultivar ‘Steamboat’ progeny plant. Mean trait values may be used to determine whether trait differences are significant, and preferably the traits are measured on plants grown under the same environmental conditions. Once such a variety is developed its value is substantial since it is important to advance the germplasm base as a whole in order to maintain or improve traits such as yield, disease resistance, pest resistance, and plant performance in extreme environmental conditions.

Progeny of lettuce cultivar ‘Steamboat’ may also be characterized through their filial relationship with lettuce cultivar ‘Steamboat’, as for example, being within a certain number of breeding crosses of lettuce cultivar ‘Steamboat’. A breeding cross is a cross made to introduce new genetics into the progeny, and is distinguished from a cross, such as a self or a sib cross, made to select among existing genetic alleles. The lower the number of breeding crosses in the pedigree, the closer the relationship between lettuce cultivar ‘Steamboat’ and its progeny. For example, progeny produced by the methods described herein may be within 1, 2, 3, 4 or 5 breeding crosses of lettuce cultivar ‘Steamboat’.

As used herein, the term “plant” includes plant cells, plant protoplasts, plant cell tissue cultures from which lettuce plants can be regenerated, plant calli, plant clumps and plant cells that are intact in plants or parts of plants, such as leaves, pollen, embryos, cotyledons, hypocotyl, roots, root tips, anthers, pistils, flowers, seeds, stems and the like.

Tables

Table 2 below compares some of the characteristics of lettuce cultivar ‘Steamboat’ with lettuce cultivar ‘Embrace’. Column 1 lists the characteristics, column 2 shows the characteristics for lettuce cultivar ‘Steamboat’ and column 3 shows the characteristics for lettuce cultivar ‘Embrace’.

TABLE 2 Paired Comparison Characteristic ‘Steamboat’ ‘Embrace’ Plant Size Medium to large Medium Bremia resistance BL: 17-20, 22, 24, BL: 17-20, 22, 24, 25 25 Resistant Susceptible

Table 3 below compares some of the characteristics of lettuce cultivar ‘Steamboat’ with lettuce cultivar ‘E14.4214’. Column 1 lists the characteristics, column 2 shows the characteristics for lettuce cultivar ‘Steamboat’ and column 3 shows the characteristics for lettuce cultivar ‘E14.4214’.

TABLE 3 Paired Comparison Characteristic ‘Steamboat’ ‘Embrace’ Seed Color Black White Bolting Class Medium slow Medium fast

Table 4 compares seedling measurements of lettuce cultivar ‘Steamboat’ with ‘Telluride’ and ‘Sniper’. Column one shows the plant number, columns 2-4 show the length, the width and the length to width ratio of lettuce cultivar ‘Steamboat’, columns 5-7 show the length, the width and the length to width ratio of lettuce cultivar ‘Telluride’ and columns 8-10 show the length, the width and the length to width ratio of lettuce cultivar ‘Sniper’, respectively. Lettuce cultivar ‘Steamboat’ has a greater width than lettuce cultivars ‘Telluride’ and ‘Sniper’ and a smaller length to width ratio than lettuce cultivars ‘Telluride’ and ‘Sniper’.

TABLE 4 Steamboat Telluride Sniper length width ratio length width ratio length width ratio Plant # (mm) (mm) (l/w * 10) (mm) (mm) (l/w * 10) (mm) (mm) (l/w * 10)  1 106 44 24.09 108 41 26.34 86 40 21.50  2 80 47 17.02 98 42 23.33 108 52 20.77  3 67 33 20.30 100 43 23.26 105 41 25.61  4 84 40 21.00 107 39 27.44 95 36 26.39  5 91 39 23.33 83 35 23.71 90 46 19.57  6 110 48 22.92 103 44 23.41 99 40 24.75  7 76 36 21.11 124 42 29.52 118 43 27.44  8 88 40 22.00 95 39 24.36 126 42 30.00  9 87 42 20.71 90 38 23.68 80 40 20.00 10 116 43 26.98 106 45 23.56 100 30 33.33 11 103 43 23.95 91 48 18.96 108 46 23.48 12 95 42 22.62 88 38 23.16 92 39 23.59 13 66 34 19.41 105 46 22.83 98 42 23.33 14 78 44 17.73 101 42 24.05 77 42 18.33 15 112 46 24.35 112 42 26.67 80 31 25.81 16 117 42 27.86 113 40 28.25 81 30 27.00 17 112 42 26.67 110 47 23.40 116 46 25.22 18 110 48 22.92 96 37 25.95 96 40 24.00 19 100 49 20.41 115 41 28.05 102 36 28.33 20 118 55 21.45 90 38 23.68 87 54 16.11 21 92 48 19.17 104 44 23.64 76 33 23.03 22 94 42 22.38 102 38 26.84 90 42 21.43 Mean 95.55 43.05 22.20 101.86 41.32 24.73 95.91 40.50 24.05 Std. 16.10 5.12 2.80 10.00 3.43 2.38 13.78 6.29 3.97 Dev. Variance 259.31 26.24 7.84 100.03 11.75 5.69 189.80 39.60 15.78

Table 5 compares the spread of frame leaves and the head weight of lettuce cultivar ‘Steamboat’ with lettuce cultivars ‘Telluride’ and ‘Sniper’. Column 1 shows the trial date (month and year), column 2 shows the repetition number, column 3 shows the plant number, columns 4-6 show the spread of the frame leaves in centimeters for lettuce cultivars ‘Steamboat’, ‘Telluride’ and ‘Sniper’, respectively and columns 7-9 show the head weight in grams for lettuce cultivars ‘Steamboat’, ‘Telluride’ and ‘Sniper’, respectively. Data show that lettuce cultivar ‘Steamboat’ has a greater spread of frame leaves and a heavier head weight than lettuce cultivars ‘Telluride’ and ‘Sniper’. Data were taken in San Juan Bautista, Calif.

TABLE 5 Spread of Frame Leaves Head Weight (cm) (grams) Trial Rep No. Steamboat Telluride Sniper Steamboat Telluride Sniper September 2007 Rep1 1 64.6 59.2 57.3 1,254.3 983.4 1,146.3 September 2007 Rep1 2 61.9 52.7 55.3 1,065.3 851.9 844.1 September 2007 Rep1 3 61.3 58.5 56.4 1,072.6 905.4 1,127.7 September 2007 Rep1 4 60.7 58.8 57.3 1,028.3 870.6 950.1 September 2007 Rep1 5 60.4 55.5 58.0 1,337.9 895.3 795.0 September 2007 Rep1 6 57.1 60.7 59.3 866.4 889.5 1,054.6 September 2007 Rep1 7 54.1 54.3 57.5 994.8 757.8 1,115.2 September 2007 Rep1 8 59.0 56.1 55.8 1,213.5 816.3 835.9 September 2007 Rep1 9 57.0 54.8 49.9 857.7 822.2 743.9 September 2007 Rep1 10 60.0 62.0 54.7 1,214.8 877.3 1,060.4 September 2007 Rep1 11 54.0 55.5 54.2 972.4 706.0 894.0 September 2007 Rep1 12 59.6 55.1 55.2 962.3 798.7 989.8 September 2007 Rep1 13 62.1 59.7 57.0 1,004.5 796.0 1,012.5 September 2007 Rep1 14 64.0 59.2 59.3 1,231.3 912.4 1,056.1 September 2007 Rep1 15 60.1 59.5 58.0 1,094.1 790.5 1,177.8 September 2007 Rep1 16 57.1 58.5 56.5 1,221.8 776.9 1,062.7 September 2007 Rep1 17 63.8 54.7 60.0 931.4 816.5 1,096.8 September 2007 Rep1 18 65.7 56.2 58.0 1,241.3 833.5 1,050.3 September 2007 Rep1 19 63.8 56.1 62.8 1,028.9 864.8 1,183.7 September 2007 Rep1 20 58.0 57.5 56.0 817.1 935.0 903.9 September 2007 Rep2 1 64.5 57.2 58.0 1,037.7 791.0 1,078.0 September 2007 Rep2 2 61.4 54.1 60.1 946.6 952.1 995.4 September 2007 Rep2 3 67.0 57.7 62.9 1,202.4 735.4 1,066.7 September 2007 Rep2 4 54.7 56.5 57.4 863.5 824.3 977.1 September 2007 Rep2 5 63.9 59.8 60.0 1,142.0 964.0 1,119.0 September 2007 Rep2 6 59.0 55.2 58.0 1,068.2 852.3 1,010.0 September 2007 Rep2 7 62.3 58.1 64.0 1,139.6 835.6 1,012.7 September 2007 Rep2 8 60.4 57.2 61.4 1,148.5 733.1 1,071.9 September 2007 Rep2 9 63.5 56.8 58.5 1,018.9 758.2 1,064.4 September 2007 Rep2 10 59.0 55.1 59.5 1,204.5 737.5 1,065.1 September 2007 Rep2 11 62.0 59.5 59.3 1,291.0 842.9 1,047.4 September 2007 Rep2 12 60.3 55.9 57.9 933.7 742.9 960.9 September 2007 Rep2 13 62.5 56.2 59.5 1,079.3 658.6 1,129.0 September 2007 Rep2 14 68.0 57.4 58.4 1,076.4 906.3 916.4 September 2007 Rep2 15 62.4 56.5 57.3 1,284.9 752.4 1,012.8 September 2007 Rep2 16 63.0 57.2 55.8 1,100.3 779.9 928.5 September 2007 Rep2 17 63.2 54.8 60.0 1,053.3 709.5 909.0 September 2007 Rep2 18 62.4 56.1 58.0 973.5 818.1 998.6 September 2007 Rep2 19 63.1 59.6 59.0 953.0 749.1 782.6 September 2007 Rep2 20 64.3 68.5 55.9 1,178.4 681.7 1,015.5 April 2008 Rep1 1 54.0 56.1 59.9 805.4 834.7 885.1 April 2008 Rep1 2 63.8 59.1 58.1 920.0 883.6 882.4 April 2008 Rep1 3 58.1 55.6 53.6 969.5 872.7 637.5 April 2008 Rep1 4 56.1 55.9 55.0 984.4 837.2 650.0 April 2008 Rep1 5 60.0 56.0 56.1 997.4 892.0 850.0 April 2008 Rep1 6 57.2 55.8 55.8 804.3 740.0 756.5 April 2008 Rep1 7 54.6 58.5 55.9 1,041.9 677.4 800.6 April 2008 Rep1 8 59.2 51.8 60.0 842.5 409.5 661.7 April 2008 Rep1 9 62.7 55.9 55.9 1,100.6 582.2 674.8 April 2008 Rep1 10 56.9 54.6 52.0 1,080.0 694.8 723.0 April 2008 Rep1 11 59.1 54.6 56.9 839.0 668.0 685.8 April 2008 Rep1 12 56.7 53.0 54.9 769.8 662.0 740.0 April 2008 Rep1 13 63.9 55.0 59.1 882.4 661.8 769.2 April 2008 Rep1 14 53.1 52.0 59.9 688.5 640.0 737.4 April 2008 Rep1 15 55.0 52.0 55.3 953.3 675.0 764.8 April 2008 Rep1 16 59.1 56.3 53.0 863.5 771.3 690.0 April 2008 Rep1 17 60.2 53.6 54.2 929.1 750.0 625.5 April 2008 Rep1 18 57.0 58.1 53.8 682.2 656.4 753.0 April 2008 Rep1 19 60.0 56.0 56.4 903.3 801.3 839.9 April 2008 Rep1 20 54.4 55.0 53.8 851.4 840.5 693.4 April 2008 Rep2 1 54.3 56.2 57.5 833.0 824.2 602.4 April 2008 Rep2 2 59.0 59.0 55.3 795.5 834.4 618.8 April 2008 Rep2 3 54.3 56.0 57.5 815.8 1,031.5 787.5 April 2008 Rep2 4 57.1 54.2 54.0 819.5 719.5 634.0 April 2008 Rep2 5 61.5 56.7 55.8 839.5 820.3 778.4 April 2008 Rep2 6 55.0 54.9 58.1 668.6 635.5 733.5 April 2008 Rep2 7 58.1 55.1 57.0 720.0 945.2 685.1 April 2008 Rep2 8 56.5 54.7 52.9 799.5 746.2 817.8 April 2008 Rep2 9 54.9 57.0 57.9 781.8 912.1 644.2 April 2008 Rep2 10 57.1 59.0 58.1 901.3 802.6 921.4 April 2008 Rep2 11 63.1 54.1 54.7 770.0 745.8 690.8 April 2008 Rep2 12 58.2 56.3 51.0 810.5 822.2 606.2 April 2008 Rep2 13 55.1 54.4 52.5 640.9 837.6 558.5 April 2008 Rep2 14 55.8 59.3 54.6 835.2 1,004.0 650.6 April 2008 Rep2 15 53.3 57.6 55.0 793.0 800.4 630.0 April 2008 Rep2 16 60.1 47.8 57.1 780.7 793.0 755.5 April 2008 Rep2 17 60.2 58.1 49.5 880.0 823.2 482.6 April 2008 Rep2 18 59.8 51.1 56.2 873.2 821.2 617.3 April 2008 Rep2 19 58.1 56.3 58.9 868.0 742.2 557.5 April 2008 Rep2 20 54.2 53.3 53.2 828.0 750.5 574.5 Grand Mean 59.5 56.4 56.8 963.4 796.1 855.4 Grand St. Dev. 3.6 2.7 2.8 165.4 101.3 183.5 Grand Variance 12.8 7.5 7.6 27,354.5 10,258.1 33,688.3

Table 6 compares the head diameter in centimeters and the head height in centimeters of lettuce cultivar ‘Steamboat’ with lettuce cultivars ‘Telluride’ and ‘Sniper’. Column 1 shows the trial date (month and year), column 2 shows the repetition number, column 3 shows the plant number, columns 4-6 show the head diameter in centimeters for lettuce cultivars ‘Steamboat’, ‘Telluride’ and ‘Sniper’, respectively and columns 7-9 show the head height in centimeters for lettuce cultivars ‘Steamboat’, ‘Telluride’ and ‘Sniper’, respectively. Data show that lettuce cultivar ‘Steamboat’ has a greater head diameter and head height than lettuce cultivars ‘Telluride’ and ‘Sniper’. Data were taken in San Juan Bautista, Calif.

TABLE 6 Head Diameter (cm) Head Height (cm) Trial Rep No. Steamboat Telluride Sniper Steamboat Telluride Sniper September 2007 Rep1 1 16.5 14.8 15.2 18.2 13.1 13.9 September 2007 Rep1 2 17.1 15.5 13.4 15.4 12.6 14.4 September 2007 Rep1 3 14.4 14.5 13.7 16.5 16.6 14.6 September 2007 Rep1 4 16.9 12.5 14.4 16.2 16.5 13.8 September 2007 Rep1 5 17.4 15.4 16.2 18.9 17.1 14.4 September 2007 Rep1 6 14.4 16.7 15.1 15.2 18.9 15.9 September 2007 Rep1 7 14.5 12.2 16.7 15.4 15.7 14.6 September 2007 Rep1 8 16.1 16.5 13.9 15.6 16.8 13.0 September 2007 Rep1 9 15.2 15.0 14.4 17.1 15.5 13.1 September 2007 Rep1 10 15.9 16.0 14.9 16.5 17.1 15.2 September 2007 Rep1 11 16.4 12.5 15.1 14.1 15.4 14.0 September 2007 Rep1 12 15.4 14.2 15.3 15.7 12.9 14.8 September 2007 Rep1 13 15.3 16.2 13.7 18.1 14.4 14.1 September 2007 Rep1 14 16.9 15.2 13.9 17.1 13.8 14.6 September 2007 Rep1 15 17.7 13.7 15.5 16.9 16.6 16.7 September 2007 Rep1 16 17.3 14.8 14.3 16.2 14.3 14.3 September 2007 Rep1 17 15.7 13.0 15.6 13.3 15.1 15.4 September 2007 Rep1 18 16.1 14.1 15.8 17.7 15.5 17.9 September 2007 Rep1 19 14.9 12.1 15.5 15.4 15.5 15.8 September 2007 Rep1 20 15.1 16.8 14.4 13.4 14.1 15.1 September 2007 Rep2 1 16.1 14.8 15.4 14.9 12.6 13.9 September 2007 Rep2 2 16.1 14.1 13.0 15.8 16.0 14.7 September 2007 Rep2 3 16.9 14.5 15.2 14.8 14.7 13.7 September 2007 Rep2 4 15.1 13.6 16.2 15.3 15.1 15.1 September 2007 Rep2 5 16.9 13.9 16.8 15.8 14.8 16.9 September 2007 Rep2 6 16.3 14.8 13.9 14.8 14.6 14.6 September 2007 Rep2 7 16.6 15.5 14.2 16.3 15.7 13.6 September 2007 Rep2 8 15.1 13.4 15.5 14.9 14.1 15.4 September 2007 Rep2 9 17.1 14.4 14.4 17.9 14.7 15.0 September 2007 Rep2 10 17.5 13.5 14.2 16.4 13.7 15.1 September 2007 Rep2 11 16.4 12.7 14.9 16.6 16.6 15.3 September 2007 Rep2 12 15.5 13.7 15.1 14.8 14.5 14.7 September 2007 Rep2 13 16.5 13.4 14.8 15.7 15.2 15.6 September 2007 Rep2 14 16.2 13.5 14.9 16.0 15.0 12.8 September 2007 Rep2 15 16.4 14.8 14.5 15.8 16.2 13.9 September 2007 Rep2 16 16.8 16.7 14.1 17.0 15.8 14.2 September 2007 Rep2 17 16.1 12.3 15.4 16.3 13.7 14.4 September 2007 Rep2 18 16.4 13.5 16.2 17.0 15.4 14.9 September 2007 Rep2 19 14.6 14.6 15.4 16.5 14.1 14.9 September 2007 Rep2 20 18.3 13.3 16.5 16.7 15.6 15.3 April 2008 Rep1 1 15.5 16.5 14.7 17.0 16.7 15.0 April 2008 Rep1 2 16.0 14.5 13.6 20.1 19.2 14.6 April 2008 Rep1 3 16.5 15.2 14.8 16.2 16.0 15.7 April 2008 Rep1 4 17.3 15.0 15.9 16.4 17.4 14.6 April 2008 Rep1 5 16.4 16.7 17.0 17.3 17.0 16.5 April 2008 Rep1 6 16.4 15.3 16.5 16.5 15.6 16.2 April 2008 Rep1 7 16.2 14.6 15.3 17.4 16.0 15.8 April 2008 Rep1 8 14.3 14.7 16.0 17.9 15.4 15.1 April 2008 Rep1 9 15.1 15.0 18.5 16.3 16.2 17.7 April 2008 Rep1 10 15.2 16.0 16.5 16.7 16.5 15.3 April 2008 Rep1 11 15.4 15.3 16.6 15.5 15.7 15.4 April 2008 Rep1 12 16.0 15.5 16.4 16.7 16.7 17.3 April 2008 Rep1 13 16.5 13.0 16.6 17.3 16.2 16.5 April 2008 Rep1 14 15.3 16.0 15.0 15.2 15.0 16.4 April 2008 Rep1 15 15.7 14.7 15.5 17.4 17.3 15.7 April 2008 Rep1 16 15.1 13.6 15.0 17.4 16.4 15.6 April 2008 Rep1 17 16.3 15.8 15.8 16.3 18.3 15.7 April 2008 Rep1 18 15.0 16.5 15.2 18.1 16.0 14.3 April 2008 Rep1 19 15.3 16.2 14.9 16.7 17.3 14.6 April 2008 Rep1 20 16.0 14.6 15.7 15.7 15.3 14.8 April 2008 Rep2 1 16.5 14.5 14.8 15.3 16.0 16.3 April 2008 Rep2 2 15.4 18.2 14.7 16.0 17.3 14.2 April 2008 Rep2 3 14.0 19.0 14.6 16.1 17.3 15.2 April 2008 Rep2 4 15.3 15.1 15.8 16.6 16.6 15.4 April 2008 Rep2 5 15.1 16.0 14.3 16.5 16.8 14.6 April 2008 Rep2 6 15.3 15.0 15.0 16.6 17.1 14.5 April 2008 Rep2 7 16.6 15.2 13.6 18.8 16.7 14.8 April 2008 Rep2 8 15.5 16.1 14.5 19.3 16.3 15.6 April 2008 Rep2 9 14.5 14.7 16.0 15.8 16.0 14.9 April 2008 Rep2 10 17.7 16.5 16.6 17.6 18.3 16.1 April 2008 Rep2 11 17.3 13.2 14.7 17.5 16.1 15.8 April 2008 Rep2 12 15.1 15.7 14.7 16.8 16.8 13.5 April 2008 Rep2 13 15.0 14.7 12.8 16.1 16.4 15.2 April 2008 Rep2 14 16.1 17.2 14.0 16.6 18.3 14.8 April 2008 Rep2 15 15.6 16.1 19.0 15.5 17.3 16.1 April 2008 Rep2 16 14.6 18.3 15.8 16.7 15.2 15.5 April 2008 Rep2 17 14.7 16.4 14.0 17.4 17.7 15.7 April 2008 Rep2 18 15.6 16.1 15.7 16.8 18.8 15.0 April 2008 Rep2 19 16.4 16.9 15.8 17.0 17.8 15.4 April 2008 Rep2 20 17.7 16.0 15.6 14.1 16.2 15.7 Grand Mean 15.9 15.0 15.2 16.4 15.9 15.1 Grand St. Dev. 0.9 1.4 1.1 1.2 1.4 1.0 Grand Variance 0.9 2.1 1.2 1.5 2.0 1.0

Table 7 compares the core diameter in millimeters and the core length in millimeters of lettuce cultivar ‘Steamboat’ with lettuce cultivars ‘Telluride’ and ‘Sniper’. Column 1 shows the trial date (month and year), column 2 shows the repetition number, column 3 shows the plant number, columns 4-6 show the core diameter in millimeters for lettuce cultivars ‘Steamboat’, ‘Telluride’ and ‘Sniper’, respectively and columns 7-9 show the core length in millimeters for lettuce cultivars ‘Steamboat’, ‘Telluride’ and ‘Sniper’, respectively. Data show that lettuce cultivar ‘Steamboat’ has a lower core diameter and core length than lettuce cultivars ‘Telluride’ and ‘Sniper’. Data were taken in San Juan Bautista, Calif.

TABLE 7 Core Diameter (mm) Core Length (mm) Trial Rep No. Steamboat Telluride Sniper Steamboat Telluride Sniper September 2007 Rep1 1 25.1 34.5 31.5 71.3 48.6 109.4 September 2007 Rep1 2 29.3 38.5 31.2 61.4 46.7 88.6 September 2007 Rep1 3 28.7 35.2 31.3 75.2 51.9 89.2 September 2007 Rep1 4 27.6 36.6 28.2 64.3 64.5 118.6 September 2007 Rep1 5 29.5 35.2 29.8 75.6 75.8 71.4 September 2007 Rep1 6 27.3 37.1 34.7 63.8 83.8 89.8 September 2007 Rep1 7 29.8 33.5 34.2 69.4 50.6 97.8 September 2007 Rep1 8 35.1 35.0 29.6 77.2 62.5 75.8 September 2007 Rep1 9 28.4 31.2 30.8 61.0 51.9 88.7 September 2007 Rep1 10 29.2 33.5 33.1 79.1 42.6 109.8 September 2007 Rep1 11 23.2 33.2 31.3 72.1 62.3 91.5 September 2007 Rep1 12 23.2 33.5 32.7 77.8 81.4 114.8 September 2007 Rep1 13 27.5 31.5 33.3 84.3 45.6 101.5 September 2007 Rep1 14 30.2 32.0 33.8 79.4 57.9 103.4 September 2007 Rep1 15 28.5 35.0 37.8 77.4 57.4 113.8 September 2007 Rep1 16 29.4 32.2 34.7 94.1 67.4 102.8 September 2007 Rep1 17 24.6 33.1 36.8 55.1 55.6 101.5 September 2007 Rep1 18 26.5 34.8 32.7 62.1 75.0 112.5 September 2007 Rep1 19 29.2 31.2 41.4 84.3 75.2 112.6 September 2007 Rep1 20 22.4 30.0 34.8 68.3 91.5 96.2 September 2007 Rep2 1 26.2 33.2 36.3 66.2 62.0 93.8 September 2007 Rep2 2 26.3 33.7 33.4 69.2 59.1 119.5 September 2007 Rep2 3 28.2 31.2 36.5 74.1 56.4 108.7 September 2007 Rep2 4 23.2 35.5 39.5 63.1 54.8 91.6 September 2007 Rep2 5 27.1 34.0 39.7 82.3 55.7 157.2 September 2007 Rep2 6 29.6 33.8 35.4 72.4 76.5 107.5 September 2007 Rep2 7 30.7 35.2 27.4 76.1 71.0 103.8 September 2007 Rep2 8 29.2 34.8 34.1 77.3 74.3 112.7 September 2007 Rep2 9 30.2 32.8 32.4 70.6 56.5 107.4 September 2007 Rep2 10 28.3 33.0 32.1 85.0 62.4 110.7 September 2007 Rep2 11 29.2 32.5 36.2 71.0 74.2 108.7 September 2007 Rep2 12 27.6 35.5 31.5 69.1 58.7 102.6 September 2007 Rep2 13 29.6 31.0 37.5 75.4 54.6 103.1 September 2007 Rep2 14 30.4 35.1 30.7 63.1 93.7 89.2 September 2007 Rep2 15 30.3 35.8 31.8 62.1 57.0 104.6 September 2007 Rep2 16 28.2 33.5 29.8 78.1 72.0 104.7 September 2007 Rep2 17 32.1 32.5 30.6 69.2 53.6 94.8 September 2007 Rep2 18 29.3 31.0 34.7 74.2 61.2 98.2 September 2007 Rep2 19 25.1 29.0 33.6 89.2 67.2 88.5 September 2007 Rep2 20 27.1 32.8 34.4 85.0 81.5 126.2 April 2008 Rep1 1 35.0 35.8 32.1 41.8 54.9 37.8 April 2008 Rep1 2 36.4 39.9 34.8 37.7 59.0 41.0 April 2008 Rep1 3 30.0 39.0 33.8 38.1 46.9 32.9 April 2008 Rep1 4 39.8 34.5 29.9 45.7 58.0 47.3 April 2008 Rep1 5 34.4 35.2 34.4 37.3 69.9 51.8 April 2008 Rep1 6 35.2 37.0 39.0 38.2 61.0 48.6 April 2008 Rep1 7 36.8 32.8 34.9 46.0 58.8 52.5 April 2008 Rep1 8 33.0 31.2 32.5 36.5 39.0 49.9 April 2008 Rep1 9 36.8 36.0 36.7 40.0 40.0 48.8 April 2008 Rep1 10 37.1 34.1 34.4 45.1 52.2 58.9 April 2008 Rep1 11 36.2 36.1 34.8 44.9 51.9 38.5 April 2008 Rep1 12 32.4 35.2 35.0 42.1 50.0 61.8 April 2008 Rep1 13 35.3 33.1 39.0 45.0 49.8 43.2 April 2008 Rep1 14 35.9 34.9 30.0 49.0 55.2 48.2 April 2008 Rep1 15 34.2 32.0 30.5 45.6 45.1 42.2 April 2008 Rep1 16 34.9 36.5 34.0 34.2 51.2 59.1 April 2008 Rep1 17 34.4 35.7 38.1 45.5 67.2 62.9 April 2008 Rep1 18 31.8 36.8 33.1 46.2 65.9 49.1 April 2008 Rep1 19 30.0 40.0 38.1 32.0 59.0 65.4 April 2008 Rep1 20 31.2 35.6 34.8 42.3 51.1 59.0 April 2008 Rep2 1 30.0 30.5 31.2 40.0 55.8 41.8 April 2008 Rep2 2 29.9 36.8 30.0 40.0 52.2 53.1 April 2008 Rep2 3 32.0 38.2 33.2 35.1 66.3 52.1 April 2008 Rep2 4 34.0 34.0 35.0 45.5 60.1 55.5 April 2008 Rep2 5 32.8 35.2 33.5 36.1 55.8 60.0 April 2008 Rep2 6 30.0 35.0 34.1 40.9 50.2 50.1 April 2008 Rep2 7 33.2 39.9 34.9 44.3 71.1 51.2 April 2008 Rep2 8 36.2 35.6 32.0 51.1 55.2 51.2 April 2008 Rep2 9 32.9 35.7 30.9 51.3 64.3 39.9 April 2008 Rep2 10 34.5 39.1 34.8 50.0 62.4 55.2 April 2008 Rep2 11 34.7 40.5 33.8 34.9 55.7 55.0 April 2008 Rep2 12 34.7 41.0 31.2 43.0 66.1 59.0 April 2008 Rep2 13 26.8 35.8 31.8 35.0 52.3 47.9 April 2008 Rep2 14 36.2 37.1 33.1 57.5 66.8 49.9 April 2008 Rep2 15 34.3 34.8 34.4 36.0 50.0 55.1 April 2008 Rep2 16 27.7 36.2 36.2 35.9 62.8 65.1 April 2008 Rep2 17 31.1 37.1 34.0 44.9 51.9 51.2 April 2008 Rep2 18 35.2 40.0 34.8 45.9 53.2 51.5 April 2008 Rep2 19 30.8 35.7 33.2 45.9 59.8 62.1 April 2008 Rep2 20 32.2 30.5 34.8 39.9 42.7 62.0 Grand Mean 30.8 34.8 33.7 57.7 59.9 77.4 Grand St. Dev. 3.8 2.6 2.7 17.2 11.1 28.3 Grand Variance 14.5 6.9 7.5 294.9 122.5 803.5

Table 8 compares the ratio of the head diameter to the core diameter of lettuce cultivar ‘Steamboat’ with lettuce cultivars ‘Telluride’ and ‘Sniper’. Column 1 shows the trial date (month and year), column 2 shows the repetition number, column 3 shows the plant number and columns 4-6 show the ratio of the head diameter to the core diameter for lettuce cultivars ‘Steamboat’, ‘Telluride’ and ‘Sniper’, respectively. Data show that lettuce cultivar ‘Steamboat’ has a higher ratio of head diameter to core diameter than lettuce cultivars ‘Telluride’ and ‘Sniper’. Data were taken in San Juan Bautista, Calif.

TABLE 8 Head Diameter/Core Diameter Trial Rep No. Steamboat Telluride Sniper September 2007 Rep1 1 6.57 4.29 4.83 September 2007 Rep1 2 5.84 4.03 4.29 September 2007 Rep1 3 5.02 4.12 4.38 September 2007 Rep1 4 6.12 3.42 5.11 September 2007 Rep1 5 5.90 4.38 5.44 September 2007 Rep1 6 5.27 4.50 4.35 September 2007 Rep1 7 4.87 3.64 4.88 September 2007 Rep1 8 4.59 4.71 4.70 September 2007 Rep1 9 5.35 4.81 4.68 September 2007 Rep1 10 5.45 4.78 4.50 September 2007 Rep1 11 7.07 3.77 4.82 September 2007 Rep1 12 6.64 4.24 4.68 September 2007 Rep1 13 5.56 5.14 4.11 September 2007 Rep1 14 5.60 4.75 4.11 September 2007 Rep1 15 6.21 3.91 4.10 September 2007 Rep1 16 5.88 4.60 4.12 September 2007 Rep1 17 6.38 3.93 4.24 September 2007 Rep1 18 6.08 4.05 4.83 September 2007 Rep1 19 5.10 3.88 3.74 September 2007 Rep1 20 6.74 5.60 4.14 September 2007 Rep2 1 6.15 4.46 4.24 September 2007 Rep2 2 6.12 4.18 3.89 September 2007 Rep2 3 5.99 4.65 4.16 September 2007 Rep2 4 6.51 3.83 4.10 September 2007 Rep2 5 6.24 4.09 4.23 September 2007 Rep2 6 5.51 4.38 3.93 September 2007 Rep2 7 5.41 4.40 5.18 September 2007 Rep2 8 5.17 3.85 4.55 September 2007 Rep2 9 5.66 4.39 4.44 September 2007 Rep2 10 6.18 4.09 4.42 September 2007 Rep2 11 5.62 3.91 4.12 September 2007 Rep2 12 5.62 3.86 4.79 September 2007 Rep2 13 5.57 4.32 3.95 September 2007 Rep2 14 5.33 3.85 4.85 September 2007 Rep2 15 5.41 4.13 4.56 September 2007 Rep2 16 5.96 4.99 4.73 September 2007 Rep2 17 5.02 3.78 5.03 September 2007 Rep2 18 5.60 4.35 4.67 September 2007 Rep2 19 5.82 5.03 4.58 September 2007 Rep2 20 6.75 4.05 4.80 April 2008 Rep1 1 4.43 4.61 4.58 April 2008 Rep1 2 4.40 3.63 3.91 April 2008 Rep1 3 5.50 3.90 4.38 April 2008 Rep1 4 4.35 4.35 5.32 April 2008 Rep1 5 4.77 4.74 4.94 April 2008 Rep1 6 4.66 4.14 4.23 April 2008 Rep1 7 4.40 4.45 4.38 April 2008 Rep1 8 4.33 4.71 4.92 April 2008 Rep1 9 4.10 4.17 5.04 April 2008 Rep1 10 4.10 4.69 4.80 April 2008 Rep1 11 4.25 4.24 4.77 April 2008 Rep1 12 4.94 4.40 4.69 April 2008 Rep1 13 4.67 3.93 4.26 April 2008 Rep1 14 4.26 4.58 5.00 April 2008 Rep1 15 4.59 4.59 5.08 April 2008 Rep1 16 4.33 3.73 4.41 April 2008 Rep1 17 4.74 4.43 4.15 April 2008 Rep1 18 4.72 4.48 4.59 April 2008 Rep1 19 5.10 4.05 3.91 April 2008 Rep1 20 5.13 4.10 4.51 April 2008 Rep2 1 5.50 4.75 4.74 April 2008 Rep2 2 5.15 4.95 4.90 April 2008 Rep2 3 4.38 4.97 4.40 April 2008 Rep2 4 4.50 4.44 4.51 April 2008 Rep2 5 4.60 4.55 4.27 April 2008 Rep2 6 5.10 4.29 4.40 April 2008 Rep2 7 5.00 3.81 3.90 April 2008 Rep2 8 4.28 4.52 4.53 April 2008 Rep2 9 4.41 4.12 5.18 April 2008 Rep2 10 5.13 4.22 4.77 April 2008 Rep2 11 4.99 3.26 4.35 April 2008 Rep2 12 4.35 3.83 4.71 April 2008 Rep2 13 5.60 4.11 4.03 April 2008 Rep2 14 4.45 4.64 4.23 April 2008 Rep2 15 4.55 4.63 5.52 April 2008 Rep2 16 5.27 5.06 4.36 April 2008 Rep2 17 4.73 4.42 4.12 April 2008 Rep2 18 4.43 4.03 4.51 April 2008 Rep2 19 5.32 4.73 4.76 April 2008 Rep2 20 5.50 5.25 4.48 Grand Mean 5.26 4.32 4.52 Grand St. Dev. 0.73 0.44 0.39 Grand Variance 0.54 0.19 0.15

Table 9 shows results from evaluations conducted over a three-year period on Oct. 15, 2006 (Test #7), Sep. 11, 2007 (Test #10) and Aug. 5, 2008 (Test #2) for susceptibility to Corky Root (CA I) Sphingomonas suberifaciens among lettuce culitvars ‘Steamboat’, ‘Telluride’, ‘Diamond’, ‘Silverado’, ‘Sniper’, ‘Vandenberg’ and ‘Trojan’. Column one shows the lettuce variety, column two shows the repetition number, column three shows the number of plants tested, column four shows the number of resistant plants observed and column five shows the number of plants susceptible. In all tests, ‘Steamboat’ showed no susceptibility to Corky Root, while ‘Diamond’ and ‘Vandenberg’ shows high susceptibility to Corky Root.

TABLE 9 # Plants # Plants # Plants Variety Rep Tested Resistant Susceptible Corky Root Test # 7 of 2006 (Evaluated: Oct. 15, 2006) Steamboat - F7 1 17 17 0 Steamboat - F7 2 19 19 0 Telluride 1 13 13 0 Telluride 2 21 21 0 Diamond 1 24 0 24 Silverado 1 21 0 21 Corky Root Test # 10 of 2007 (Evaluated: Sep. 11, 2007) Steamboat - F8 1 23 23 0 Steamboat - F8 2 24 24 0 Steamboat - F8 3 23 23 0 Steamboat - F7 1 23 23 0 Telluride 1 23 23 0 Telluride 2 14 14 0 Sniper 1 24 24 0 Diamond 1 16 0 16 Vandenberg 1 23 0 23 Trojan 1 16 0 16 Corky Root Test # 2 of 2008 (Evaluated: Aug. 5, 2008) Steamboat - F9 1 26 26 0 Steamboat - F9 2 30 30 0 Steamboat - F9 3 30 30 0 Steamboat - F9 4 30 30 0 Steamboat - F9 5 27 27 0 Steamboat - F9 6 28 28 0 Steamboat - F8 1 11 11 0 Steamboat - F8 2 18 18 0 Steamboat - F8 3 11 11 0 Steamboat - F7 1 31 31 0 Steamboat - F7 2 29 29 0 Steamboat - F7 3 30 30 0 Telluride 1 32 32 0 Telluride 2 30 30 0 Telluride 3 29 29 0 Sniper 1 28 28 0 Sniper 2 32 32 0 Sniper 3 32 32 0 Vandenberg 1 31 0 31 Vandenberg 2 30 0 30 Vandenberg 3 32 0 32

Table 10 shows results from evaluations conducted on Jun. 6, 2007 for susceptibility to Downy Mildew (CA V) Bremia lactucae among seedlings of lettuce culitvars ‘Steamboat’, ‘Telluride’, and ‘Sniper’. Column one shows the lettuce variety, column two shows the repetition number, column three shows the number of plants tested, column four shows the number of resistant plants observed and column five shows the number of plants susceptible. In all tests, ‘Steamboat’ showed no susceptibility to a trace of susceptibility in one plant, while ‘Telluride’ showed no susceptibility and ‘Sniper’ showed high susceptibility.

TABLE 10 Downy Mildew Seedling Test # 27 of 2007 (Evaluated: Jun. 6, 2007) # Plants # Plants # Plants Variety Rep Tested Resistant Susceptible Steamboat - F8 1 18 18 0 Steamboat - F7 1 24 23  1* Telluride 1 24 24 0 Sniper 1 25 0 25  *weak plant with slight sporulation

Table 11 shows results from evaluations conducted on Oct. 11, 2007 for susceptibility to Downy Mildew (CA VII) Bremia lactucae among seedlings of lettuce culitvars ‘Steamboat’, ‘Colorado’, ‘Cobham’, ‘Ninja’, ‘Discovery’ and ‘Argeles’. Column one shows the lettuce variety, column two shows the repetition number, column three shows the number of plants tested, column four shows the number of resistant plants observed and column five shows the number of plants susceptible. ‘Steamboat’ showed a trace of susceptibility in one plant, while ‘Colorado’ and ‘Cobham’ showed high susceptibility, ‘Ninja’Telluride’ showed a trace of susceptibility in one plant and ‘Discovery’ and ‘Argeles’ showed no susceptibility.

TABLE 11 Downy Mildew Seedling Test # 1 of 2007 (Evaluated: Oct. 11, 2006) # Plants # Plants # Plants Variety Rep Tested Resistant Susceptible Steamboat - F7 1 15 14  1* Colorado - S-16 1 16 0 16 Colorado - S-16 2 16 0 16 Cobham Green - S-00 1 15 0 15 Cobham Green - S-00 2 16 0 16 Ninja - S-16 1 16 15  1* Discovery - S-18 1 15 15  0 Argeles - S-19 1 15 15  0 *weak plants with slight sporulation

Table 12 shows results from evaluations conducted on Oct. 12, 2007 and Aug. 13, 2008 for susceptibility to Downy Mildew (CA VIII) Bremia lactucae among seedlings and leaf disks of lettuce cultivars ‘Steamboat’, ‘Telluride’, ‘Sniper’, ‘Vandenberg’, ‘Cobham’, ‘R4T57D’, ‘Colorado’ and check cultivars. Column one shows the lettuce variety, column two shows the repetition number, column three shows the number of plants tested, column four shows the number of resistant plants observed and column five shows the number of plants susceptible. ‘Steamboat’ showed a trace of susceptibility in one plant, while ‘Telluride’, ‘Sniper’ and ‘Vandenberg’ showed high susceptibility. In testing for susceptibility on leaf disks, ‘Steamboat’ showed no susceptibility while ‘Cobham’, ‘R4T57D’ and ‘Colorado’ showed high susceptibility.

TABLE 12 # Plants # Plants # Plants Variety Rep Tested Resistant Susceptible Downy Mildew Seedling Test # 34 of 2007 (Evaluated: Oct. 12, 2007) Steamboat - F8 1 23 22  1* Steamboat - F7 1 22 21  1* Telluride 1 24 0 24 Sniper 1 22 0 22 Vandenberg 1 24 0 24 Downy Mildew Leaf Disk Test (Evaluated: Aug. 13, 2008) Steamboat - F9 1 12 12  0 Steamboat - F9 2 11 11  0 Cobham Green - S-00 1 12 0 12 R4T57D - S-04 1 12 0 12 Colorado - S-16 1 12 0 12 Resistant Check - R171 1 12 12  0 Resistant Check - R172 1 12 12  0 *weak plants with slight sporulation

Table 13 shows results from evaluations conducted on Feb. 8, 2008 and Apr. 7, 2008 for susceptibility to Lettuce mosaic virus Tests with LMV (common strain) among seedlings of lettuce cultivars ‘Steamboat’, ‘Telluride’ and ‘Sniper’. Column one shows the lettuce variety, column two shows the repetition number, column three shows the number of plants tested, column four shows the number of resistant plants observed and column five shows the number of plants susceptible. ‘Steamboat’ showed no susceptibility while ‘Telluride’ and ‘Sniper’ showed high susceptibility.

TABLE 13 # Plants # Plants Variety # Plants Tested Resistant Susceptible LMV Test Evaluated: Feb. 28, 2008 Steamboat - F8 15 15 0 Steamboat - F7 16 16 0 Telluride 16 0 16 Sniper 16 0 16 LMV Test Evaluated: Apr. 7, 2008 Steamboat - F8 14 14 0 Steamboat - F7 12 12 0 Telluride 12 0 12 Sniper 13 0 13

Deposit Information

A deposit of the lettuce cultivar seed of this invention is maintained by Enza Zaden Beheer B. V, 7 Harris Place, Salinas, Calif. 93901 USA. Access to this deposit will be available during the pendency of this application to persons determined by the Commissioner of Patent and Trademarks to be entitled thereto under 37 C.F.R. §1.14 and 35 U.S.C. §122. Upon allowance of any claims in this application, all restrictions on the availability to the public of the variety will be irrevocably removed by affording access to a deposit of at least 2,500 seeds of the same variety with the American Type Culture Collection (ATCC), Manassas, Va., USA.

While a number of exemplary aspects and embodiments have been discussed above, those of skill in the art will recognize certain modifications, permutations, additions, and sub-combinations thereof. It is therefore intended that the following appended claims and claims hereafter introduced are interpreted to include all such modifications, permutations, additions, and sub-combinations as are within their true spirit and scope. 

1. A seed of lettuce cultivar designated ‘Steamboat’, wherein a representative sample of seed of said cultivar was deposited under ATCC Accession No. PTA-______.
 2. A lettuce plant, or a part thereof, produced by growing the seed of claim
 1. 3. A tissue culture of cells produced from the plant of claim 2, wherein said cells of the tissue culture are produced from a plant part selected from the group consisting of embryo, meristematic cell, leaf, cotyledon, hypocotyl, stem, root, root tip, pistil, anther, flower, seed and pollen.
 4. A protoplast produced from the plant of claim
 2. 5. A protoplast produced from the tissue culture of claim
 3. 6. A lettuce plant regenerated from the tissue culture of claim 3, wherein the plant has all of the morphological and physiological characteristics of cultivar ‘Steamboat’, wherein a representative sample of seed was deposited under ATCC Accession No. PTA-______.
 7. A method for producing a hybrid lettuce seed, wherein the method comprises crossing the plant of claim 2 with a different lettuce plant and harvesting the resultant F₁ hybrid lettuce seed.
 8. A hybrid lettuce seed produced by the method of claim
 7. 9. A hybrid lettuce plant, or a part thereof, produced by growing said hybrid seed of claim
 8. 10. A method of producing a male sterile lettuce plant wherein the method comprises transforming the lettuce plant of claim 2 with a nucleic acid molecule that confers male sterility.
 11. A male sterile lettuce plant produced by the method of claim
 10. 12. A method for producing an herbicide resistant lettuce plant wherein the method comprises transforming the lettuce plant of claim 2 with a transgene, wherein the transgene confers resistance to an herbicide selected from the group consisting of imidazolinone, sulfonylurea, glyphosate, glufosinate, L-phosphinothricin, triazine and benzonitrile.
 13. An herbicide resistant lettuce plant produced by the method of claim
 12. 14. A method of producing an insect resistant lettuce plant wherein the method comprises transforming the lettuce plant of claim 2 with a transgene that confers insect resistance.
 15. An insect resistant lettuce plant produced by the method of claim
 14. 16. The lettuce plant of claim 15 wherein the transgene encodes a Bacillus thuringiensis endotoxin.
 17. A method of producing a disease resistant lettuce plant wherein the method comprises transforming the lettuce plant of claim 2 with a transgene that confers disease resistance.
 18. A disease resistant lettuce plant produced by the method of claim
 17. 19. A method of producing a lettuce plant with a value-added trait, wherein the method comprises transforming the lettuce plant of claim 2 with a transgene encoding a protein selected from the group consisting of a ferritin, a nitrate reductase, and a monellin.
 20. A lettuce plant with a value-added trait produced by the method of claim
 19. 21. A lettuce plant, or a part thereof, having all of the physiological and morphological characteristics of lettuce cultivar ‘Steamboat’, wherein a representative sample of seed of the cultivar was deposited under ATCC Accession No. PTA-______.
 22. A method of introducing a desired trait into lettuce cultivar ‘Steamboat’ wherein the method comprises: a) crossing a ‘Steamboat’ plant grown from ‘Steamboat’ seed, wherein a representative sample of seed was deposited under ATCC Accession No. PTA-______, with a plant of another lettuce cultivar that comprises a desired trait to produce F₁ progeny plants, wherein the desired trait is selected from the group consisting of male sterility, herbicide resistance, insect resistance, and resistance to bacterial disease, fungal disease, or viral disease; b) selecting one or more progeny plants that have the desired trait to produce selected progeny plants; c) crossing the selected progeny plants with the ‘Steamboat’ plants to produce backcross progeny plants; d) selecting for backcross progeny plants that have the desired trait and all of the physiological and morphological characteristics of lettuce cultivar ‘Steamboat’ listed in Table 1 to produce selected backcross progeny plants; and e) repeating steps (c) and (d) three or more times in succession to produce selected fourth or higher backcross progeny plants that comprise the desired trait and all of the physiological and morphological characteristics of lettuce cultivar ‘Steamboat’ listed in Table
 1. 23. A lettuce plant produced by the method of claim 22, wherein the plant has the desired trait and all of the physiological and morphological characteristics of lettuce cultivar ‘Steamboat’ listed in Table
 1. 24. The lettuce plant of claim 23, wherein the desired trait is herbicide resistance and the resistance is conferred to an herbicide selected from the group consisting of imidazolinone, sulfonylurea, glyphosate, glufosinate, L-phosphinothricin, triazine and benzonitrile.
 25. The lettuce plant of claim 23, wherein the desired trait is insect resistance and the insect resistance is conferred by a transgene encoding a Bacillus thuringiensis endotoxin.
 26. The lettuce plant of claim 23, wherein the desired trait is male sterility and the trait is conferred by a nucleic acid molecule. 